The government has nothing to do with this. Whoever moderated this as Interesting needs a clue.
The article itself states that the institute is being sued by taxpayer's groups who object to things like the closed-doors meetings to determine grant eligibility, which was in the bill the voters *PASSED*.
Because of this lawsuit, the institute cannot issue bonds to raise money to fund stem-cell research projects, since no financial institution will touch them until litigation is resolved.
Now that I summarized the article for you, explain to me exactly how 'governments and special interest groups keep beating each other with their dicks'?
The institute which is being sued was a direct result of the passing of California's Proposition 71.
The proposition basically said that a institute would be created to oversee applications and grants of stem cell research, and fund said research by issuing bonds worth up to $350million per year, up to a maximum of $3billion overall.
It's ironic that the representativesof the voters that voted this bill in are the ones that are now suing the institute the bill created, completely ignoring the fact that the bill itself states that funding deliberations are exempt from the state's open-meeting law. Go read it, it's all here: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_en tire.pdf
They voted for something they DID NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND FULLY. This is a sad reality in today's elections; very rarely you find anyone who actually knows what they're voting for, instead following the misleading propaganda out there, with stupid statements like "If you don't pass this bill, millions of kids will die!". Just check out the homepage for the institute itself:
Something is not right with the so-called 'packet captures' provided by the person that wrote the article on the Minnesota Public Radio site (http://www.publicradio.org/columns/minnesota/poli naut/):
And let's assume -- and remember this is a hypothetical here -- I had enough intelligence to decompile the program and figure out what data is being captured and sent. Could I do it?
Yes. Someone did.
No.", "Time", "Source", "Destination", "Protocol", "Info" "1", "17:11:52.780492305", "192.168.125.128", "10.2.2.81", "TCP", "1106 > http [SYN] Seq=0 Ack=0 Win=64240 Len=0 MSS=1460" "2", "17:11:52.794481754", "10.2.2.81", "192.168.125.128", "TCP", "http > 1106 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=64240 Len=0 MSS=1460" "3", "17:11:52.799275636", "192.168.125.128", "10.2.2.81", "TCP", "1106 > http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=64240 Len=0" "4", "17:11:52.806763172", "192.168.125.128", "10.2.2.81", "TCP", "[TCP segment of a reassembled PDU]" Now that's pretty basic stuff: what your IP is, what your CPU is, what your operating system is. But is it possible to find out what your answers are to the questions? Including your phone number, your address, your name, your spouse's name and how you vote?
Yes. Someone did.
The IP addresses listed in the snipet above are both part of IANA-reserved ranges for internal use. So, until they show the real packet contents, I'm calling bullshit on the conspiracy theory, and tell refer them to the first post on this thread.
Yes, but your Volvo is pushing what, 100hp? Less, perhaps?
Actually, that means nothing. I could say that your apples are laughable, because my oranges taste more like real oranges than your apples. Thats' what you're saying, kinda.
Those are pretty decent consumption numbers for a car with that horsepower, so think about that before saying anything.
Can we not steal more links from other site?
on
WoW the Next "Golf"?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
This story was on Fark yesterday. I mean, come on.... Fark links the story on ExtremeTech by the same author:
I have an idea: to make/.'s editors' lives easier, why don't you just use a crawler and every hour, you copy one of the Fark/Joystiq/Kotaku/Gizmodo/Engadget links? That way, you still have some 'news', and they might actually be a little less behind.
Not to rain on your parade, but can you afford to take a pay cut, to go to your 'dream job', or do you have responsibilities, like wife/kids/mortgage/car payments/etc? If you have any kind of commitments such as the ones that I described, you should think long and hard before moving to a volatile environment such as a startup. I wouldn't do it unless I had at least 6 months or so worth of savings that I could fall back on if the 'dream job' didn't pay off and I was out on the street. Your mileage may vary, of course. As I grow older, I find myself looking at my job as just that, a job. I use it to pay my bills and to 'fund' the activities I actually enjoy, and while there's always a certain level of 'enjoyment' in it, I don't find it necessary to be challenging to be happy. A steady paycheck and great benefits are most enjoyable, thank you.
That's strange. What airline was this that let you on board using a boarding pass from another flight? From my flying experiences with Continental and American Airlines, every boarding pass is scanned using a barcode scanner right at the boarding gate. You wouldn't be able to board the plane if they scanned your boarding pass from a previous flight. So, want to explain that?
"A 35mm film frame is approximately 24mm x 36 mm. Thus, to get an approximate pixel equivalent you'd multiply 24mm x lines/mm x 36mm x lines/mm for equivalent data. (This is then multiplied by 3 for 8-bit RGB color to get the uncompressed file size for the resulting image.)
Reala & Superia 100
24mm x 60 x 36mm x 60 = 3,110,400 pixels (equivalent) or about an 8.9 MB file
Velvia
24mm x 160 x 36mm x 160 = 22,118,400 pixels (equivalent.) or about a 63.3 MB file
Compare this to the advertised performance of professional digital cameras such as: Nikon D1x (5,327,776 pixels) Canon EOS 10D (6,518,336 pixels) Canon EOS 1Ds (10,989.056 pixels) Kodak DCS 14n (13,898,880 pixels) "
It seems you don't really know that much about the subject matter.
maybe you should trust the professional photographers who have switched. The ones who no-longer have darkrooms in their studios and always sway their clients towards digital (and thats not because its less work for them, when you shoot digital, YOU do all of the post processing in photoshop rather than the pro lab you send it to).
The 'professionals' that have switched to digital are those that only do shots that don't require extremely high resolutions; i.e. newspapers and other print publications, wedding photographers, etc, and it's mostly because of convenience and immediate results. Professional photographers stick to larger formats like 120mm, or 4x5. No 'professional' really uses 35mm, but enthusiasts do.
The time has come, cameras are outdoing film grain (especially at high speed). You may need a scanner of higher resolution than a camera to get a good scan but that is because the grain does not match up to pixels so you have to go higher resolution.> [
Wrong again. The average 35mm SLR camera with an average roll of film still comes out with a resolution equivalent to a 25 megapixel digital shot, which you can't find anywhere. However, you can't see what the shot looks like immediately after you take it with a film SLR camera, but you can with a digital one. That's what's making people move away from them, not 'the grain being outdone'. I can guarantee you that if you take a shot with a 8 or 10 megapixel DSLR and I take the same exact shot with my 35mm N90s and scan the film, my shot will be 10x better-looking than yours, without even touching Photoshop. I can also guarantee you that anyone with a 20 or 30 year old Rolleiflex TLR taking the same shot will make yours look like pure shit, and mine look like crap.
It sounds pretty hard-core for Nikon to drop film this early but it will eventually get to the point where the only people who use 35mm are people who dont need the added features next years body would provide (they can still use new lenses, at least for a while) as they are changing the settings themselves and dont need a computer to do it for them.
No, wrong yet again. Nikon is dropping film bodies because Joe Shmoe reads the average photo mag and decides that digital is the next best thing since sliced bread (kinda like you), which is an incredibly ignorant thing to think. Since the average joe wants to take pictures and see what they look like now, they go all out for digital cameras, and Nikon is more than happy to accomodate them. Why do you think they're keeping the F6 in production? Because it's (to put it simply) quite possibly the best SLR camera ever made, loved by pros. You won't buy it because you can't afford it, and very few people will, compared to the general market.
The bottom line is that this was a decision made to increase proffits, not because digital is better than film or any such nonsense.
"... the article is about a conference hosted by the Chaos Computing Club in Berlin, where they describe the actions taken by a Austrian civil liberties group against recent legislation that enable police to install cameras in public places."
i.e. Austrian civil liberties group members are in a conference in Berlin, Germany, describing what actions they have taken to fight legislation that they see as infringing their rights in their homeland, Austria.
Lemme guess, you didn't read the article either, did you?
Let me spell it out to you, just in case:
1) Austrian government passes some law allowing police to put cameras in public places(IN AUSTRIA);
2) Austrian civil liberties group comes up with imaginative ways to screw with these cameras (IN AUSTRIA);
3) Chaos Computer Club from Germany hosts a conference in Berlin (IN GERMANY);
4) Said Austrian hackers are invited to come to Berlin (IN GERMANY), and talk about the methods they used to defeat these cameras' effectiveness (BACK IN AUSTRIA).
Of course, in your rush to make a post with a inane little political statement against the administration, you failed to read the article.
If you had read it, you'd learn that the cameras are not in Britain. Even the article submitter failed to use basic reading comprehension, since the article is about a conference hosted by the Chaos Computing Club in Berlin, where they describe the actions taken by a Austrian civil liberties group against recent legislation that enable police to install cameras in public places.
In Austria. Not in Berlin, Germany. Also not Britain.
Reading comprehension seems to be sorely lacking here.
The error in the original reporting is that it was all fake. The kid made it up. The parents had no clue. No Homeland Security agents, or any government agents ever spoke to him about any book requests.
Please, please, please just do a google news search if you don't believe it.
Could this ground-breaking article have anything to do with the upcoming release of a book written by the author of the NY Times article, which happens to deal with this exact subject matter?
Before you start lashing out against the government, notice that the article states that the monitoring activities are of individuals believed to have possible ties to terrorist networks, and no mention is made if they're even US citizens.
Of course, you can say that they could technically monitor anyone they want as long as they made it a 'national security' matter, but then again, you are probably wearing tinfoil hats and living confortably in your tempest cages, so you have nothing to worry about.
"That is their property. Nobody has a right to take a snapshot of it, store it, or recreate it."
Wrong. If you put up a website on a publicly and easily-accessible forum (like, geocities or yahoo), you have absolutely no expectation or right to privacy. If you want privacy, put it on your own server, and set up some sort of access control (i.e. passwords, cookies, whatever).
"...Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations?"
Does he have the right to erase them? Yes. Does he have the right to erase them off everyone else's site/hard drive/cache? No. Imagine you put up a sign in your property facing a major roadway, saying what beers you like, what porn movies you watch, and later on, you tack on some pics of yourself engaging in the act. You leave it up for 2 or 3 years, people tell their friends, who come over and take pictures of the sign, and put up copies of itin their own properties. You grow up, you decide that was a probably not a good idea. Should you now be able to go and get the signs they put up off? No, sorry, you don't have that right. You can ask nicely, but there's nothing you can do legally about it.
That's what the Internet is, a giant billboard. You're free to post whatever you want, but be prepared to deal with the long-term consequences of your actions.
When will you learn that your expectation of privacy on the Internet should be ZERO, unless you put some effort into insuring that you preserve some level of anonimity and responsibility?
Here we have a country that (according to the UN) holds 50% of the world's hungry:
"Nearly 50 percent of the world's hungry live in India, a low-income, food-deficit country. Around 35 percent of India's population - 350 million - are considered food-insecure, consuming less than 80 percent of minimum energy requirements.
Nutritional and health indicators are extremely low. Nearly nine out of 10 pregnant women aged between 15 and 49 years suffer from malnutrition and anaemia. Anaemia in pregnant women causes 20 percent of infant mortality. More than half of the children under five are moderately or severely malnourished, or suffer from stunting."
Firefly sucked, plain and simple. Don't get your sci-fi-geek panties in a bunch, folks... Things don't get canceled because they're 'too good for TV', ok?
As with most Slashdot monkeys, you jumped the gun on this.
I believe the poster was referring to a hypothetical situation where DEVELOPER (not Company B) took a presumably extinct GPL project and modified it on his own as a way to lessen the amount of actual work he'd have to perform, as opposed to 'reinvent the wheel', if you will.
I also believe that the poster is implying in his scenario that Developer B did *not* inform Company A of his use of the GPL'ed code, but simply turned it to Company A as any developer-for-hire would do.
In no part of his post he states that Developer B turned over the source code to Company A as a way to insure his compliance with the GPL; he did it simply because it was part of his contract with Company A, and *it just so happened it also cleared him of GPL abuse* in the process.
This then brings the questions:
1) Is Company A in violation of the GPL if they were completely unaware of Developer B's use of GPL code?
2) If they were indeed unaware, and market this code, are they under any obligation to make the sourcecode freely available to any of their users?
3) If someone comes after them because of this, shouldn't the developer be the one to get crucified for this perceived violation of the GPL?
For all intents and purposes, I'd say that if person XY contacted the company and said "Your product violates my IP rights, under the GPL, you need to comply, and release the source code" is also *not entitled* to a copy of it, unless he's willing to pay for it. The GPL does state that you can ask people to pay for GPL code if they do so request, but what they do with it after you give it to them is up to them.
I suggest you go check this url out, as I'm almost 100% sure you've never laid eyes on it:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ml
So, in short, you haven't responded to his hypothetical scenario and remain a idiotic GPL zealot.
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.
I'd like to ask you your opinion on what some would consider the 'rabid fanaticism' displayed by some open source advocates, and whether you believe that it affects the image of the free & open software movement. As you are probably aware, SlashDot is one of the biggest forums for Linux advocacy and it is not uncommon to see regular bashing of Microsoft products, company policies, etc. It is almost inconceivable for many of the regulars at a number of these forums that good things do come out of commercial software, that there is innovation, and anyone defending (or generally having a positive attitude towards) Microsoft is immediately labeled as a shill or an idiot. I believe both commercial and open-source software can co-exist in the current market, but I don't think open-source can be taken seriously if we can't be mature in our statements and opinions, and look objectively at the current efforts being done in the public relations arena (or lack thereof). As so, what would you suggest we could do to 'bridge the gap' and work together for what is really our common goal: the benefit of the end users of our products?
Lee began with Marvel in 1939, and served as writer, editor, art director, head writer and publisher for the company before effectively retiring from active duty and becoming chairman emeritus. He filed the lawsuit in November 2002, pointing out a clause in his contract that entitled him to 10 percent of TV, movie and merchandising deals, an amount he thought was significantly higher than the $1 million-per-year salary he currently receives.
While some blogs are quite good, I believe that they should be looked at by what they are: online diaries and commentary. If we went back a few years, the blogging equivalent would be scrapbooking (which is also very big in certain areas). People are sharing their experiences, opinions, interesting events, reflections, etc. However, scrapbooking is still just a hobby.
Although the strict definition of journalism does apply to blogs (" The periodical collection and publication of current news; the business of managing, editing, or writing for, journals or newspapers; as, political journalism." according to dictionary.com), I think we'd all aggree that pure journalism should be unbiased and report purely on the events. Even though the mainstream media is biased to some degree, they still have to answer for misinformation, bad sources, etc. Blogs are even more biased, as we all saw during the past Presidential Election, and they have no accountability whatsoever. At best, they'd qualify as op-ed pieces in a news publication.
If bloggers could be held accountable for their stories, and if there was some kind of 'accreditation' for them, I think they could then be recognized as valid news sources and not just the ranting and raving of the few.
Slashdot Mirror
How are they violating the will of the voters, if it's the taxpayer groups (you know, the voters) that are suing the Institute they voted to create?
The government has nothing to do with this. Whoever moderated this as Interesting needs a clue.
The article itself states that the institute is being sued by taxpayer's groups who object to things like the closed-doors meetings to determine grant eligibility, which was in the bill the voters *PASSED*.
Because of this lawsuit, the institute cannot issue bonds to raise money to fund stem-cell research projects, since no financial institution will touch them until litigation is resolved.
Now that I summarized the article for you, explain to me exactly how 'governments and special interest groups keep beating each other with their dicks'?
The institute which is being sued was a direct result of the passing of California's Proposition 71.
n tire.pdf
The proposition basically said that a institute would be created to oversee applications and grants of stem cell research, and fund said research by issuing bonds worth up to $350million per year, up to a maximum of $3billion overall.
It's ironic that the representativesof the voters that voted this bill in are the ones that are now suing the institute the bill created, completely ignoring the fact that the bill itself states that funding deliberations are exempt from the state's open-meeting law.
Go read it, it's all here: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_e
They voted for something they DID NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND FULLY. This is a sad reality in today's elections; very rarely you find anyone who actually knows what they're voting for, instead following the misleading propaganda out there, with stupid statements like "If you don't pass this bill, millions of kids will die!". Just check out the homepage for the institute itself:
http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/
Sometimes, it boggles the mind how ignorant and idiotic my fellow Californians can be....
Something is not right with the so-called 'packet captures' provided by the person that wrote the article on the Minnesota Public Radio site (http://www.publicradio.org/columns/minnesota/poli naut/):
And let's assume -- and remember this is a hypothetical here -- I had enough intelligence to decompile the program and figure out what data is being captured and sent. Could I do it?
Yes. Someone did.
No.", "Time", "Source", "Destination", "Protocol", "Info" "1", "17:11:52.780492305", "192.168.125.128", "10.2.2.81", "TCP", "1106 > http [SYN] Seq=0 Ack=0 Win=64240 Len=0 MSS=1460" "2", "17:11:52.794481754", "10.2.2.81", "192.168.125.128", "TCP", "http > 1106 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=64240 Len=0 MSS=1460" "3", "17:11:52.799275636", "192.168.125.128", "10.2.2.81", "TCP", "1106 > http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=64240 Len=0" "4", "17:11:52.806763172", "192.168.125.128", "10.2.2.81", "TCP", "[TCP segment of a reassembled PDU]"
Now that's pretty basic stuff: what your IP is, what your CPU is, what your operating system is. But is it possible to find out what your answers are to the questions? Including your phone number, your address, your name, your spouse's name and how you vote?
Yes. Someone did.
The IP addresses listed in the snipet above are both part of IANA-reserved ranges for internal use.
So, until they show the real packet contents, I'm calling bullshit on the conspiracy theory, and tell refer them to the first post on this thread.
Yes, but your Volvo is pushing what, 100hp? Less, perhaps?
Actually, that means nothing. I could say that your apples are laughable, because my oranges taste more like real oranges than your apples. Thats' what you're saying, kinda.
Those are pretty decent consumption numbers for a car with that horsepower, so think about that before saying anything.
This story was on Fark yesterday. I mean, come on....
6 ,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
/.'s editors' lives easier, why don't you just use a crawler and every hour, you copy one of the Fark/Joystiq/Kotaku/Gizmodo/Engadget links? That way, you still have some 'news', and they might actually be a little less behind.
Fark links the story on ExtremeTech by the same author:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,192277
and TheGrapeApe is using the 1Up link:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3147826
They're the same exact story.
I have an idea: to make
Not to rain on your parade, but can you afford to take a pay cut, to go to your 'dream job', or do you have responsibilities, like wife/kids/mortgage/car payments/etc?
If you have any kind of commitments such as the ones that I described, you should think long and hard before moving to a volatile environment such as a startup. I wouldn't do it unless I had at least 6 months or so worth of savings that I could fall back on if the 'dream job' didn't pay off and I was out on the street.
Your mileage may vary, of course. As I grow older, I find myself looking at my job as just that, a job. I use it to pay my bills and to 'fund' the activities I actually enjoy, and while there's always a certain level of 'enjoyment' in it, I don't find it necessary to be challenging to be happy.
A steady paycheck and great benefits are most enjoyable, thank you.
That's strange. What airline was this that let you on board using a boarding pass from another flight?
From my flying experiences with Continental and American Airlines, every boarding pass is scanned using a barcode scanner right at the boarding gate. You wouldn't be able to board the plane if they scanned your boarding pass from a previous flight.
So, want to explain that?
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Keep your LameJokeGuy name.
t s/pano/filmvdigpanos.html
Since you seem to think that Rockwell is not a good source, here's a few different ones:
"The very short answer is that there are around 20 million "quality" pixels in a top-quality 35mm shot."
-http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html
"A 35mm film frame is approximately 24mm x 36 mm. Thus, to get an approximate pixel equivalent you'd multiply 24mm x lines/mm x 36mm x lines/mm for equivalent data. (This is then multiplied by 3 for 8-bit RGB color to get the uncompressed file size for the resulting image.)
Reala & Superia 100
24mm x 60 x 36mm x 60 = 3,110,400 pixels (equivalent) or about an 8.9 MB file
Velvia
24mm x 160 x 36mm x 160 = 22,118,400 pixels (equivalent.) or about a 63.3 MB file
Compare this to the advertised performance of professional digital cameras such as:
Nikon D1x (5,327,776 pixels)
Canon EOS 10D (6,518,336 pixels)
Canon EOS 1Ds (10,989.056 pixels)
Kodak DCS 14n (13,898,880 pixels) "
-http://www.vrphotography.com/data/pages/askexper
It seems you don't really know that much about the subject matter.
maybe you should trust the professional photographers who have switched. The ones who no-longer have darkrooms in their studios and always sway their clients towards digital (and thats not because its less work for them, when you shoot digital, YOU do all of the post processing in photoshop rather than the pro lab you send it to).
The 'professionals' that have switched to digital are those that only do shots that don't require extremely high resolutions; i.e. newspapers and other print publications, wedding photographers, etc, and it's mostly because of convenience and immediate results. Professional photographers stick to larger formats like 120mm, or 4x5. No 'professional' really uses 35mm, but enthusiasts do.
The time has come, cameras are outdoing film grain (especially at high speed). You may need a scanner of higher resolution than a camera to get a good scan but that is because the grain does not match up to pixels so you have to go higher resolution.> [
Wrong again. The average 35mm SLR camera with an average roll of film still comes out with a resolution equivalent to a 25 megapixel digital shot, which you can't find anywhere. However, you can't see what the shot looks like immediately after you take it with a film SLR camera, but you can with a digital one. That's what's making people move away from them, not 'the grain being outdone'.
I can guarantee you that if you take a shot with a 8 or 10 megapixel DSLR and I take the same exact shot with my 35mm N90s and scan the film, my shot will be 10x better-looking than yours, without even touching Photoshop.
I can also guarantee you that anyone with a 20 or 30 year old Rolleiflex TLR taking the same shot will make yours look like pure shit, and mine look like crap.
It sounds pretty hard-core for Nikon to drop film this early but it will eventually get to the point where the only people who use 35mm are people who dont need the added features next years body would provide (they can still use new lenses, at least for a while) as they are changing the settings themselves and dont need a computer to do it for them.
No, wrong yet again.
Nikon is dropping film bodies because Joe Shmoe reads the average photo mag and decides that digital is the next best thing since sliced bread (kinda like you), which is an incredibly ignorant thing to think. Since the average joe wants to take pictures and see what they look like now, they go all out for digital cameras, and Nikon is more than happy to accomodate them.
Why do you think they're keeping the F6 in production? Because it's (to put it simply) quite possibly the best SLR camera ever made, loved by pros. You won't buy it because you can't afford it, and very few people will, compared to the general market.
The bottom line is that this was a decision made to increase proffits, not because digital is better than film or any such nonsense.
As I said:
"... the article is about a conference hosted by the Chaos Computing Club in Berlin, where they describe the actions taken by a Austrian civil liberties group against recent legislation that enable police to install cameras in public places."
i.e. Austrian civil liberties group members are in a conference in Berlin, Germany, describing what actions they have taken to fight legislation that they see as infringing their rights in their homeland, Austria.
Lemme guess, you didn't read the article either, did you?
Let me spell it out to you, just in case:
1) Austrian government passes some law allowing police to put cameras in public places(IN AUSTRIA);
2) Austrian civil liberties group comes up with imaginative ways to screw with these cameras (IN AUSTRIA);
3) Chaos Computer Club from Germany hosts a conference in Berlin (IN GERMANY);
4) Said Austrian hackers are invited to come to Berlin (IN GERMANY), and talk about the methods they used to defeat these cameras' effectiveness (BACK IN AUSTRIA).
Now, is that better?
Of course, in your rush to make a post with a inane little political statement against the administration, you failed to read the article.
If you had read it, you'd learn that the cameras are not in Britain. Even the article submitter failed to use basic reading comprehension, since the article is about a conference hosted by the Chaos Computing Club in Berlin, where they describe the actions taken by a Austrian civil liberties group against recent legislation that enable police to install cameras in public places.
In Austria. Not in Berlin, Germany. Also not Britain.
Reading comprehension seems to be sorely lacking here.
Yes, it was a hoax.
0 5/a01lo719.htm
The kid made it all up.
You can go read it here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-
Or you can stay confused, if you do so wish.
Yes, it was a hoax, as in "It never happened, the kid made it up"
0 5/a01lo719.htm
Go read, please: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-
The error in the original reporting is that it was all fake. The kid made it up. The parents had no clue. No Homeland Security agents, or any government agents ever spoke to him about any book requests.
Please, please, please just do a google news search if you don't believe it.
Could this ground-breaking article have anything to do with the upcoming release of a book written by the author of the NY Times article, which happens to deal with this exact subject matter?
Before you start lashing out against the government, notice that the article states that the monitoring activities are of individuals believed to have possible ties to terrorist networks, and no mention is made if they're even US citizens.
Of course, you can say that they could technically monitor anyone they want as long as they made it a 'national security' matter, but then again, you are probably wearing tinfoil hats and living confortably in your tempest cages, so you have nothing to worry about.
"That is their property. Nobody has a right to take a snapshot of it, store it, or recreate it."
Wrong. If you put up a website on a publicly and easily-accessible forum (like, geocities or yahoo), you have absolutely no expectation or right to privacy.
If you want privacy, put it on your own server, and set up some sort of access control (i.e. passwords, cookies, whatever).
"...Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations?"
Does he have the right to erase them? Yes. Does he have the right to erase them off everyone else's site/hard drive/cache? No.
Imagine you put up a sign in your property facing a major roadway, saying what beers you like, what porn movies you watch, and later on, you tack on some pics of yourself engaging in the act. You leave it up for 2 or 3 years, people tell their friends, who come over and take pictures of the sign, and put up copies of itin their own properties.
You grow up, you decide that was a probably not a good idea. Should you now be able to go and get the signs they put up off? No, sorry, you don't have that right. You can ask nicely, but there's nothing you can do legally about it.
That's what the Internet is, a giant billboard. You're free to post whatever you want, but be prepared to deal with the long-term consequences of your actions.
When will you learn that your expectation of privacy on the Internet should be ZERO, unless you put some effort into insuring that you preserve some level of anonimity and responsibility?
I'm kinda disappointed and surprised by this.
p ?country=356).
Here we have a country that (according to the UN) holds 50% of the world's hungry:
"Nearly 50 percent of the world's hungry live in India, a low-income, food-deficit country. Around 35 percent of India's population - 350 million - are considered food-insecure, consuming less than 80 percent of minimum energy requirements.
Nutritional and health indicators are extremely low. Nearly nine out of 10 pregnant women aged between 15 and 49 years suffer from malnutrition and anaemia. Anaemia in pregnant women causes 20 percent of infant mortality. More than half of the children under five are moderately or severely malnourished, or suffer from stunting."
This is straight out of the UN Food Program webpage (http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/indexcountry.as
So, they put this satellite up for what? To better see their people starving ?
Firefly sucked, plain and simple.
Don't get your sci-fi-geek panties in a bunch, folks... Things don't get canceled because they're 'too good for TV', ok?
Another idiot.
Please go read the GPL FAQ.
What is is doing might not be pleasing to you, but it certainly falls in the 'OK TO DO' category under the GPL.
As with most Slashdot monkeys, you jumped the gun on this.
t ml
I believe the poster was referring to a hypothetical situation where DEVELOPER (not Company B) took a presumably extinct GPL project and modified it on his own as a way to lessen the amount of actual work he'd have to perform, as opposed to 'reinvent the wheel', if you will.
I also believe that the poster is implying in his scenario that Developer B did *not* inform Company A of his use of the GPL'ed code, but simply turned it to Company A as any developer-for-hire would do.
In no part of his post he states that Developer B turned over the source code to Company A as a way to insure his compliance with the GPL; he did it simply because it was part of his contract with Company A, and *it just so happened it also cleared him of GPL abuse* in the process.
This then brings the questions:
1) Is Company A in violation of the GPL if they were completely unaware of Developer B's use of GPL code?
2) If they were indeed unaware, and market this code, are they under any obligation to make the sourcecode freely available to any of their users?
3) If someone comes after them because of this, shouldn't the developer be the one to get crucified for this perceived violation of the GPL?
For all intents and purposes, I'd say that if person XY contacted the company and said "Your product violates my IP rights, under the GPL, you need to comply, and release the source code" is also *not entitled* to a copy of it, unless he's willing to pay for it. The GPL does state that you can ask people to pay for GPL code if they do so request, but what they do with it after you give it to them is up to them.
I suggest you go check this url out, as I'm almost 100% sure you've never laid eyes on it:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.h
So, in short, you haven't responded to his hypothetical scenario and remain a idiotic GPL zealot.
...a plague upon your servers, sun!
Looks like your curse worked.
I'd like to ask you your opinion on what some would consider the 'rabid fanaticism' displayed by some open source advocates, and whether you believe that it affects the image of the free & open software movement.
As you are probably aware, SlashDot is one of the biggest forums for Linux advocacy and it is not uncommon to see regular bashing of Microsoft products, company policies, etc. It is almost inconceivable for many of the regulars at a number of these forums that good things do come out of commercial software, that there is innovation, and anyone defending (or generally having a positive attitude towards) Microsoft is immediately labeled as a shill or an idiot.
I believe both commercial and open-source software can co-exist in the current market, but I don't think open-source can be taken seriously if we can't be mature in our statements and opinions, and look objectively at the current efforts being done in the public relations arena (or lack thereof).
As so, what would you suggest we could do to 'bridge the gap' and work together for what is really our common goal: the benefit of the end users of our products?
Lee began with Marvel in 1939, and served as writer, editor, art director, head writer and publisher for the company before effectively retiring from active duty and becoming chairman emeritus. He filed the lawsuit in November 2002, pointing out a clause in his contract that entitled him to 10 percent of TV, movie and merchandising deals, an amount he thought was significantly higher than the $1 million-per-year salary he currently receives.
If we went back a few years, the blogging equivalent would be scrapbooking (which is also very big in certain areas). People are sharing their experiences, opinions, interesting events, reflections, etc. However, scrapbooking is still just a hobby.
Although the strict definition of journalism does apply to blogs (" The periodical collection and publication of current news; the business of managing, editing, or writing for, journals or newspapers; as, political journalism." according to dictionary.com), I think we'd all aggree that pure journalism should be unbiased and report purely on the events. Even though the mainstream media is biased to some degree, they still have to answer for misinformation, bad sources, etc. Blogs are even more biased, as we all saw during the past Presidential Election, and they have no accountability whatsoever. At best, they'd qualify as op-ed pieces in a news publication.
If bloggers could be held accountable for their stories, and if there was some kind of 'accreditation' for them, I think they could then be recognized as valid news sources and not just the ranting and raving of the few.