And my experience is that people in rural Anywhere-in-the-US use satellite dishes, because they got tired of getting only 2 crappy broadcast stations a decade ago. First really widespread use of satellite dishes I noticed was way back in the boondocks of Alabama (back roads between Muscle Shoals and Reform, for those of you that know the state), back in the early 1990s. Every farm and shack had one of those huge dishes that were used by early satellite antennas.
My in-laws in rural central TN have been using DishTV for years. You just can't get a decent signal in all those hills, and cable doesn't run that far from town.
I see we're busy trotting out the same old stereotypes...
Extrapolating from my own experience: I like puzzles (Myst, Lara Croft, etc), economic/strategy games (Civilization I,II,II, Pharaoh/Cleopatra/Caesar III/etc), RPGs (Baldur's Gate, NWN), MUDs, MMORPGS (EQ,DAOC).
Why? Single-player games: I like to take things at my own pace, not be driven by the pace of incoming baddies. I don't like "twitch" games... though I do play Tetris
Multi-player games: Look, Ma, no FPS! Also, in MMORPGS, I, and many female games I know, prefer the so-called "roleplaying servers".
Why no FPS and why choose RP servers?
Fewer hormone-driven male teenage jerks. Nothing like a trash-talking, lecherous, rude 13-16 year-old to turn me off from the "game community". (Or worse, so-called "adults" who behave like immature teenagers! At least the teenagers have the excuse of youth...)
I've seen that too. On the other hand, in the government support sub-contracting business, I've seen it frequently happen that Company A loses the support contract to Company B, and Company B just hires ALL THE SAME PEOPLE from Company A and moves into the same offices and keeps doing business the same way. All that changes is the corporate logo on the door.
(Yes, Sverdrup/Lockheed-Martin, I'm looking at YOU).
You know, since the page in question has someone stating an opinion or preference about Nintendo products, said law firm and Nintendo could potentially be in trouble if the Suicide Girls website is based in a state with anti-SLAPP laws, like California...
Seriously, trademark law does not forbid you from commenting on the merits or lack thereof of a product, no matter how offensive the venue is to the trademark owner. Lawyer doesn't have a case, and will know it if their bot gets a live response and some live person actually has to check what they were sending letters about. IANAL, but I've heard that when meritless C&D letters are returned with the respect the deserve, the sharks go somewhere else--unless, of course, the lawyer is one of those net.kooks who files lawsuits for the fun of it. However, real law firms working for real clients don't push unwinnable cases past a C&D letter--there's no percentage in it.
You know, when the news of the genegineered glowing zebra fish first came out, I had several thoughts about it, and about the STUPID, knee-jerk panic reaction to the concept -- "OMFG, it might escape into the wild and destroy the environment!".
1) It's a zebra fish. Zebra fish have been a popular aquarium fish for nearly a century. I suspect more than a few have escaped into the wild in that time. Since it is one of the more cold-water tolerant of the popular aquarium fish species, they could have survived in southern U.S waters or milder European waters. Has the environment of either collapsed due to zebra fish infestations in the last century? Has anyone even seen zebra fish in the wild in the U.S. or Europe? I've seen a lot of green mollies and mosquito fish and killifish in southern ditches, but those are NATIVE species that have also been used as aquarium fish. Possibly zebra fish don't survive competing with the natives.
2) The fish glows, and when it doesn't glow, is an odd color. Seems rather contra-survival to me. It is less likely to survive in the wild than its unmodified ancestors, and we've seen how much threat unmodified zebra fish have been (i.e., none as far as anyone can tell)
3) What was the company that created these fish thinking? Zebra fish are the easiest egg-laying aquarium fish to breed in captivity. Any half-way serious aquarium hobbyist can do it. They won't have a monopoly for very long. And suing your customers for infringing your genetic patents would just cost them more customers than home-breeding the things would--hobbyists are accustomed to breeding fish, not be allowed to do so because some corporation claims to own the reproductive rights on a fish you bought and paid for would strike a lot of people as an idiotic, greedy attempt to usurp their rights. Treating your customers as criminals because they use your product in the manner it's traditionally been used for decades does not build customer good-will.
4) What were those idiots in California thinking? "It's a silly pet idea, but I own stock in the company that sells it, so what can we do to boost sales? I know, let's ban it! That'll make it the must-have pet of the year among the trendy!"
You know that must be the real effect of this California ban: people who had no real interest in the stupid fish will go out-of-state and buy some just because California banned it. All that the ban really does is hurt pet stores in California, because a chunk of their customers just started shopping out-of-state.
The fish itself? Someone had way too much time on their hands when they came up with that one. California? Continues to prove itself a state I never want to live in, with idiots for government officials.
You may notice in your EULA the sentence, often in bold letters, "This software is licensed, not sold." You are committing the crime of copyright infringement by using the software (because the software must be copied into memory to be run) unless you comply with the terms of the license agreement.
No, you are not. One of the sections of the DMCA specifically confirms that copying into memory to run a program is a non-infringing use. EULAs for retail software (i.e., bought over-the-counter, not as part of a contract deal) are only binding if you agree to them--and there are arguments from contract law that "click-thru" agreements that are not visible at the time of sale are not valid, as they are imposing conditions on the sale after the sale has been transacted.
So please stop using that old, tired argument for EULAs... unless you are a troll, of course.
Next time you're cold-called have *some* sympathy for the caller though as it is one of the most soul destroying jobs out there, having the phone slammed down and taking abuse 20 times an hour.
You know, if everybody hates you because of the job you do, maybe you should change jobs?
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the job stresses of people who make a living by phone harassment (or for those of IRS employees).
there exists no quick solution to getting rid of guns, obviously..
Good. Then we can hang on to our guns during the phases when nutcases like you get in office and make laws.
but you have to start somewhere..
No, you don't.
making the sale of guns and ammo to the public illegal could be a nice starting point...
That would be a very bad starting point into tyranny and oppression. Fortunately it is unconstitutional in the U.S.
making the public TRULY aware of the horror of guns, instead of supporting them could be another..
Are you always that easily scared by inanimate pieces of metal?
the way you're describing guns here really amazes me... as if its your god given right to have the power in your hand to end someones life in an instant...
Well, actually it is. Self-defense is considered one of the self-evident human rights, and for people who were too foolish to figure it out, the guys who wrote the U.S. Constitution wrote it out explicitly in the 2nd Amendment.
i'd like to think that we've progressed FAR beyond the ass backward colonial american days when carrying arms was perhaps necessary to keep the redcoats at bay...
Unfortunately, we've regressed far from the enlightened early post-Revolution days when everyone understood the importance of freedom of speech, religion, association, the importance of limiting government power, and the overriding importance of keeping the means to "calibrate" governments that turn tyrannical-- arms in the hands of free men and women.
Unfortunately we haven't progressed beyond the need for self-defense, either. Perhaps you have; I'm curious to know what crime-free utopia you live in.
civilians have no excuse to carry guns..
Fortunately we don't need excuses. We have a Right to Bear Arms. I don't have to explain to you or the government why I choose to carry a gun, and that's the way it should be.
target shooting? boohoo, so you dont get to practice your m4d sniping skillz.. go play some counter-strike instead
You do that. I'll target-shoot to keep my gun skills sharp. Untrained fools with loaded guns are dangerous.
you dont need them to hunt - you go the store instead, or use a bow if you must absolutely kill your own food
You do that. I'll bag deer with a.30-06 if I feel like it--in season, of course.
you could use them against your government in case they became tyrannical - come on! you think youd stand a chance?
Yes, as long as none of my compatriots were like you. The government doesn't even consider doing a lot of crap because pissing off 200 million people with guns is a Very Bad Idea. I'd explain in detail, but your mind is already made up and I don't feel like bothering with the long side-argument that will entail.
you could use them to defend yourself from criminals - but then they could use them against you too.
Only if you hand them to the criminal first. Usually it's recommended that you shoot the bastard instead.
Sorry, I know you have to weasel out from under saying "you should just bend over and take it from criminals, because you have no right to defend yourself from predators"; even you think that sounds bad.
collecting guns - again, boohoo so some rich texan doesn't get to display his semi-automatic rifle collection on his wall.
So, whose collection are you jealous of? I can't think of anything else that inspired this comment.
if anything, guns are anything BUT mostly harmless...
I should hope not! If I use a gun, I want it to seriously harm what I'm shooting at!
but people like you, that have this fundamental belief that theyre essential to existance,
No, I just believe that guns are instruments of a basic, self-evident, inalienable human right: the right of self-defense.
are the reason why events like columbine, 9/11 and the latest sniper nut killings happen.......and a non sequitur follows. Because I believe people have a right to defend themselves, a bunch of fanatics fly a plane into a building? Gosh, I didn't know I had that much influence on world events!
dont you think the gains clearly outweigh the losses?
Yes, I think the gains of retaining the Right to Keep and Bear Arms clearly outway the losses.
I prefer to use Orthene. One tablespoon nails a whole nest within the day.
But then, I really, really hate fire ants. Ever accidently stepped in a nest of the little buggers? Fire ants are the rabid, poison-fanged, enemies of all mobile life besides themselves; they will happily swarm over any creature of any size that disturbs their nest and try to bite it to death....I want to see the little bastards die in writhing agony. En masse. Squashing them is just too inefficient.
If you ever read the UCMJ, you'd know that the penalty for rape can be death. Ditto for desertion... it's just that the government does not usually choose to exercise the death penalty option.
Also, military prisons are considered "hard time", not country clubs. The expression I always heard was "spend a few years making little rocks out of big ones up at Leavenworth".
..is by the anti-American anti-DMCA morons in Europe.
Anti-DMCA
Yeah, the DMCA has some very bad provisions that need to be re-done or tossed entirely. It has a few good sections, too--like the clause that says copying a program to memory to run it or installing it on your hard disk is a de jurenon-infringing use of a copyrighted work. Said clause invalidates the old traditional basis of EULAs--that normal use is infringing by definition, therefore you must have a license to use your software. Nope, not any more. The only remaining basis for EULAs is contract law, and unilaterally-imposed, no-signature, after-the-sale contract conditions are a bit shady, to say the least. So, part of the DMCA is good--it gives us a legal basis to trash bad EULAs.
We want to get rid of the idiotic "circumvention device" clauses--the ones that are being mercilessly abused to supppress competition and research, and the one-sided "safe harbor" provisions that are used to chill free speech by intimidating Hosting Services into yanking perfectly legal speech from the web until its proven innocent at the time and expense of the victim. The provisions of the DMCA that are abused show us which provisions need to be tossed or re-done. It's being looked at, and the more obnoxious provisions are getting wrung out by the courts.
Anti-American
So Free Software is now only "free" to countries whose politics you agree with? What a load of crap! I don't see anyone making sites of software and information available to everyone except, say, China or Saudi Arabia. Why not? You could be arrested if you went to China after saying anything bad about their political system, or arrested if you went to Saudi Arabia while publishing a website with scantily-clad women on it--or pirate copies of "Satanic Verses".
While you're at it, better block all French sites if you discuss WWII or mid-20th century European history--you might mention Nazis. Better block Germany if you are a religious site that says rude things about anyone else's religion--even in a historical context. Thomas Payne's papers are extremely inflammatory and insulting toward the British monarchy, so Project Gutenberg had better block Great Britain--I think lese majestie is still a crime over there. Any site that hosts the writings of Martin Luther had better block most of the majority-Catholic countries in the world--I believe it is a crime in Italy and Germany to defame the Church.
Shall I continue? The Un-Freeworld site is run by a bunch of hypocrites, and Alan Cox is just as much a hypocrite if he supports it. A bunch of Europeans have decided they are going to take their ball and go home because we Americans won't play the way they want, when they want--then they have the temerity to call themselves supporters of "free" software.
Ballocks.
Free software is NOT about "you can't see my code if I don't like your politics". The latter is called CENSORSHIP. Anyone with the attitude of this so-called TheFreeWorld site is a damn liar and hypocrite if he calls himself a support of free software, because he's just another fucking censor....morons
Oh yeah, the Freeword site claims to restrict access to non-U.S. computers, but it does not. I downloaded stuff from it just fine. Like every other fill-in-the-form, jump-through-the-stupid-hoops site, you lie through your teeth to get at the "free" content. And ignore the stupid license with the stupid unenforceable threats.
You're missing the point, and so are most of the comentators above. The argument isn't "this is bad", the argument should be "The Law of Supply and Demand is INEXORABLE."
We all know that when the Supply of a good is greater than the Demand, prices drop until Demand equals Supply. Conversely, when Demand exceeds Supply, the price rises until Demand falls off to the level of available Supply.
This Law CANNOT be circumvented, no matter how hard you try. It just turns around and bites you on the ass if you do.
Classic methods of attempting to circumvent the Law of Supply and Demand:
1) Attempt to fix the price artificially low by goverment fiat. (the old Soviet Union)
Market Response) Instant shortages, as too-low-priced goods disappear off the shelf. Demand rises as Supply drops to non-existant, and the price people are willing to pay becomes sufficiently high that an extra-legal black market comes into existance. Black market prices are significantly higher than legal market prices, but the supply is much better.
2) Attempt to fix the supply artificially low by government fiat. (War-time Rationing).
Market Response) If the Demand is sufficiently high, again a black market will develop to Supply that Demand. Black market prices will be higher than legal market prices.
2) Attempt to fix the price artificially high for the available Supply through monopoly control, price-fixing, whatever. (What the RIAA is doing)
Market Response) Create alternate sources of Supply by evading the monopolist control (buying Region 1 DVDs and playing them on your Region-Free player in Europe), monopoly-busting (remember Standard Oil? Ma Bell?), product substitution (buying DVDs or video games instead of CDs), cottage industry/black market (home ripping and sharing of MP3s, indie bands). Or, if the item is a luxury, demand drops to zero. A black market will only develop if the monopoly price is so excessive that the black marketeer can sell his goods at sufficient profit to cover his risks, and still sell at a price consistant with Demand.
Since the current CD-ripping and file sharing market has very low risk and very low distribution costs, a black market is inevitable. If the risks become higher, because of future draconian laws that are enforced, casual ripping and sharing will die out--and so will the monopoly music business. CDs are a luxury, and if overpriced, people can do without or substitute other forms of entertainment. We are already seeing this!
Am I the only one here that likes the RioOne? It's cheap, it's easily expandible using SmartMedia Flash memory (currently using 128MB Flash ROM), and it is a USB mass storage device using VFAT file system -- load the USB mass storage and appropriate SCSI drivers in your kernel, just mount the thing as another device on your filesystem, and use your favorite file manage to move MP3 files back and forth.
Simple... BUT THIS INFORMATION WAS A DOUBLE-BITCH TO FIND IN THE FIRST PLACE! Why isn't there easy-to-find documentation on how to hook up various MP3 players to Linux? You'd think it was a deep, dark secret known only to '3l33t haX0rs' or something!
And there is *NO* book out there that I have *EVER* heard that beats Honor Harrington in space combat.
Ever read anything by E. E. "Doc" Smith?
The Lensmen series is his best known work, and has some great space battles, but my favorite (probably because I read when I was a child) has always been the older Skylark series. Doc Smith pretty much defined the "space opera" battlefield in his stories.
BTW, if you do read the Skylark series, put on your historical perspective glasses first. All but the last book in the series were written pre-WWII, and the first one in particular have some serious cheerleading for eugenics--a popular, progressive trend-of-the-future back in the 1920s and 30s, but cringe-inducing post-WWII, after we saw what the Nazis did with it.
I do not comment on the ethics or morals of this action or other such actions that will ensue; I merely comment on the inevitability.
The RIAA and the MPAA, along with Microsoft, have worked hard to give themselves such an atrocious reputation as oppressive monopolists that it is inevitable that those who believe themselves oppressed by them see them as evil tyrants, to be resisted by any and all means. Every attempt by the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft to use punitive measures against their ostensible customers and bystanders will simply worsen their own reputation.
The more oppressive they act, the more people will feel justified in treating them as tyrants and enemies: use any means necessary to defeat them and depose them from power. In a war against an enemy, one does not worry about the enemy's property rights, or feelings, or legal niceties. You destroy the enemy.
As more people regard the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft as enemies rather than legitimate societal organizations, fewer people will have any moral compunctions about stealing from them, crippling their businesses, destroying their propery, ruining their individual and corporate reputations, and worse. Why should they? It is not immoral to overthrow a tyrant; in fact, it is immoral to leave one in place.
I am not saying that this is a good or right thing, nor am I saying that it is bad: I am saying that it is inevitable. Every abuse of the law by such monopolistic organizations to suppress competition and extort their would-be customers will only cause more and more people to view them as enemies and tyrants, with all that goes with it.
How long before every new movie and studio website is DDOS'd into oblivion the day it is hosted, never to be seen by the public? How long before every record company has to shut down its online store because it is DOS'd and hacked into oblivion? How long before every Microsoft and Adobe product are floating around on the Internet, free for the download, with special patches to disable all license keys and "product activation" checks? How long before every new album and movie is available before it is publically released? (I know, already happens).
How long before enough of the general public finds this morally acceptable for the reasons discussed above, and thus puts the monopolists out of business?
Most people are honest, and don't steal--but when the target is seen as a rich, oppressive tyrant who can only be hurt by theft, how long before theft becomes socially and morally acceptable--and done by everyone?
Somebody, somewhere needs to take a sanity check, because the implications of the inevitable are terrifying.
Re:Good series - what motive?
on
Forbes on Linux
·
· Score: 2
I've watched Forbes for years, so I can see two things in this: one, a certain contingent of Forbes editors and reporters have always been in love with cool tech toys--read Forbes ASAP some time. They've been watching and occasionally commenting on Linux for years now.
Two, Forbes editors and senior reporters seem to have a certain disdain for dodgy practices in business--they seem to have the attitude that companies that do dodgy stuff may not be the greatest long-term investments out there. After all, they might be dodgy in their bookkeeping, too. I will note that Forbes magazine was saying rude things about the "non-profit" business plans of the dot.bombs back when they were still the darlings of Wall Street, and that Forbes magazine has been commenting on the dodgy accounting at Enron and other companies for some time now--before it made the mainstream press.
Where am I going with this? Microsoft is notorious for its dodgy anti-competitive practices. Linux and Open Source is generally anything but dodgy. Draw your own conclusions.
The way the ring is destroyed in the end is, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the books. The entire point of that scene is to show that no living being could have the willpower to throw the ring into the fire, so great was its powers of temptation and treachery. (Spoiler ahead, watch yourself folks.) Having Gollum seize the ring from Frodo and then fall into the pit amidst his excitement over being reunited with his precious further refutes your claim about foreshadowing, as it fulfills the predictions Gandalf made way back in the Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf specifically wanrs Frodo not to kill Gollum, both out of pity and because Gandalf felt that Gollum still had some purpose to fulfill. If Frodo had ignored that advice and killed Gollum, ironically, he would have doomed all of existance to defeat at the hands of Sauron. In my opinion, that scene was very, very well done.
You missed the great irony that makes that scene even more delicious: It is the power of the One Ring that causes Gollum to throw himself into the fire!
If you remember, sometime previously Gollum promised to be good and help the hobbits, and Frodo made him swear on the One Ring. Frodo warned Gollum that the Ring would hold him to his oath, though it would try and twist it, and he later promised, by the power of the One Ring, that he, Frodo, would use the ring to order Gollum to cast himself into the fire if Gollum betrayed them--and Gollum would be helpless to disobey the Ring. It seems clear to me that the One Ring carried out Frodo's command when Gollum attacked Frodo in the pits of Summauth Naur, even though Frodo was no longer wearing the ring--perhaps because of Gollum's oath on the Ring.
Yes, really. My mailbox is constantly full of the damn things (well, that, and SPAM from Korea). I have a number of readers of my small fanfiction page, and I think they all use Windows/Outlook Express, so there you go. They are not computer geeks; they know how to use a computer to read and send e-mail, to browse the web, and to write stuff/design websites in some cases, but, like most Windows users, their computers are tools to get a job done, not a way of life.
I, on the other hand, am a programmer who uses Linux at home; I didn't get infected by those damn Klez viruses, nor do I even download them--I limit fetchmail on the size of attachment and inspect the oversized mails thru my ISP's web interface every few days. Almost everytime, they are Klez viruses, though I'm also seeing some Goldfish thingy, starting recently.
I'm really, really sick of this crap filling up my mailbox. It's viral spam: an unspeakable hybrid of two of the worst internet evils.
I agree. Think of food as something which is supposed to taste good--in fact, get picky. Eat tasty, fresh, ripe fruit, lighly sauteed vegetables that still have crunch and flavor, fresh cooked fish/chicken/etc in your choice of herbs and sauces....
Avoid over-processed snack food which really tastes like salted (or sweetened) shit when you compare it to real food. Face it, do snack foods really taste that great, or do you just eat them out of habit and hunger pangs? And because they are the only thing in the vending machine/at the convenience store?
I've been caffiene-free for several years now, but have a fair amount of experience in kicking the addiction. When you stop drinking, about the time you would crave another coffee/coke/whatever, start taking [aspirin/Tylenol/your favorite headache pill] before the headaches start. Take it as directed every n hours; it will seriously cut down the intensity of the withdrawal headaches. Second, resign yourself to the fact that you are going to be depressed, exhausted and very sleepy for a few days; don't go back to the caffiene to fix it or you will have wasted all the pain you just went through. Just ride it out; it'll be over with in a few days.
Once you've been free and clear of caffiene for a while, you'll notice that you sleep a lot better now, too, but you can't pull those all-nighters without--surprise!--getting sleepy and tired. Yes, now you're a normal human being, not a speed addict. Get a good night's sleep regularly, or you may have problems with fatigue and depression.
Watch out for caffiene hidden in soft drinks that you don't expect to have it, because you will find that you are very sensitive to caffiene once you've been off it for a while--that built-up tolerance went away, and one can of caffienated soda will keep you awake half the night--and give you a headache 3 days later.
I never could taper off. If I reduced my caffiene intake at all, I got withdrawal headaches.
I have a problem with the contention, seen here and elsewhere, that Asian diets are low-fat and high-carbohydrate. Which planet's Asia are you talking about?
My experience as a cook has been that Japanese and Chinese food is low-carbohydrate, fairly high-fat. Lots and lots of vegetables, and everything either deep-fried or stir-fried--and anyone who tells you stir-fry is low-fat is seriously confused. It's only lower fat than deep-frying; that isn't much. The only high-carbohydrate aspect is the use of white rice, and that is a raw grain, not a processed, refined, sweetened flour product. It has more of the fiber that slows down carbohydrate uptake as described in the article. Noodles and various wraps are those "evil" high-carb processed foods, but they are anywhere near as much of the cuisine as vegetables and rice.
In short, two major Asian cuisines are medium to high fat, low carbohydrate.
Indian cuisine is almost all vegetables and fruit dishes with a few pastries. Again, low-carb.
Also note that here in the Netherlands we think differently about freedom of speech (and press) than the US. While Americans are keen on absolute freedom, we dutch put a couple of restrictions on things, like racism and discrimination ofcourse, but also like bringing people to commit violence (like the articles in question).
The fact that your country allows and encourages involuntary euthanasia leaves me rather unimpressed with any Dutch arguments about how wonderful your censorship is. Your legal system is morally bankrupt. Hopefully Indymedia and Radikal can both move their controversial but free speech to American servers, and tell both the Dutch and German governments to go take a flying leap into freefall.
History has proven that only tyrants and would-be tyrants are afraid of free speech. Only fools think that violence and crime can be prevented by not talking about it. Which do they have in the Dutch and German governments, would-be tyrants or fools?
Slashdot Mirror
And my experience is that people in rural Anywhere-in-the-US use satellite dishes, because they got tired of getting only 2 crappy broadcast stations a decade ago. First really widespread use of satellite dishes I noticed was way back in the boondocks of Alabama (back roads between Muscle Shoals and Reform, for those of you that know the state), back in the early 1990s. Every farm and shack had one of those huge dishes that were used by early satellite antennas.
My in-laws in rural central TN have been using DishTV for years. You just can't get a decent signal in all those hills, and cable doesn't run that far from town.
I see we're busy trotting out the same old stereotypes...
Extrapolating from my own experience: I like puzzles (Myst, Lara Croft, etc), economic/strategy games (Civilization I,II,II, Pharaoh/Cleopatra/Caesar III/etc), RPGs (Baldur's Gate, NWN), MUDs, MMORPGS (EQ,DAOC).
Why? Single-player games: I like to take things at my own pace, not be driven by the pace of incoming baddies. I don't like "twitch" games... though I do play Tetris
Multi-player games: Look, Ma, no FPS! Also, in MMORPGS, I, and many female games I know, prefer the so-called "roleplaying servers".
Why no FPS and why choose RP servers?
Fewer hormone-driven male teenage jerks. Nothing like a trash-talking, lecherous, rude 13-16 year-old to turn me off from the "game community". (Or worse, so-called "adults" who behave like immature teenagers! At least the teenagers have the excuse of youth...)
I've seen that too. On the other hand, in the government support sub-contracting business, I've seen it frequently happen that Company A loses the support contract to Company B, and Company B just hires ALL THE SAME PEOPLE from Company A and moves into the same offices and keeps doing business the same way. All that changes is the corporate logo on the door.
(Yes, Sverdrup/Lockheed-Martin, I'm looking at YOU).
You know, since the page in question has someone stating an opinion or preference about Nintendo products, said law firm and Nintendo could potentially be in trouble if the Suicide Girls website is based in a state with anti-SLAPP laws, like California...
Seriously, trademark law does not forbid you from commenting on the merits or lack thereof of a product, no matter how offensive the venue is to the trademark owner. Lawyer doesn't have a case, and will know it if their bot gets a live response and some live person actually has to check what they were sending letters about. IANAL, but I've heard that when meritless C&D letters are returned with the respect the deserve, the sharks go somewhere else--unless, of course, the lawyer is one of those net.kooks who files lawsuits for the fun of it. However, real law firms working for real clients don't push unwinnable cases past a C&D letter--there's no percentage in it.
You know, when the news of the genegineered glowing zebra fish first came out, I had several thoughts about it, and about the STUPID, knee-jerk panic reaction to the concept -- "OMFG, it might escape into the wild and destroy the environment!".
1) It's a zebra fish. Zebra fish have been a popular aquarium fish for nearly a century. I suspect more than a few have escaped into the wild in that time. Since it is one of the more cold-water tolerant of the popular aquarium fish species, they could have survived in southern U.S waters or milder European waters. Has the environment of either collapsed due to zebra fish infestations in the last century? Has anyone even seen zebra fish in the wild in the U.S. or Europe? I've seen a lot of green mollies and mosquito fish and killifish in southern ditches, but those are NATIVE species that have also been used as aquarium fish. Possibly zebra fish don't survive competing with the natives.
2) The fish glows, and when it doesn't glow, is an odd color. Seems rather contra-survival to me. It is less likely to survive in the wild than its unmodified ancestors, and we've seen how much threat unmodified zebra fish have been (i.e., none as far as anyone can tell)
3) What was the company that created these fish thinking? Zebra fish are the easiest egg-laying aquarium fish to breed in captivity. Any half-way serious aquarium hobbyist can do it. They won't have a monopoly for very long. And suing your customers for infringing your genetic patents would just cost them more customers than home-breeding the things would--hobbyists are accustomed to breeding fish, not be allowed to do so because some corporation claims to own the reproductive rights on a fish you bought and paid for would strike a lot of people as an idiotic, greedy attempt to usurp their rights. Treating your customers as criminals because they use your product in the manner it's traditionally been used for decades does not build customer good-will.
4) What were those idiots in California thinking? "It's a silly pet idea, but I own stock in the company that sells it, so what can we do to boost sales? I know, let's ban it! That'll make it the must-have pet of the year among the trendy!"
You know that must be the real effect of this California ban: people who had no real interest in the stupid fish will go out-of-state and buy some just because California banned it. All that the ban really does is hurt pet stores in California, because a chunk of their customers just started shopping out-of-state.
The fish itself? Someone had way too much time on their hands when they came up with that one. California? Continues to prove itself a state I never want to live in, with idiots for government officials.
normally i have a pretty open mind towards people, but we obviously differ on a very fundamental level and theres no point in continuing this..
In that, we are agreed.
You may notice in your EULA the sentence, often in bold letters, "This software is licensed, not sold." You are committing the crime of copyright infringement by using the software (because the software must be copied into memory to be run) unless you comply with the terms of the license agreement.
No, you are not. One of the sections of the DMCA specifically confirms that copying into memory to run a program is a non-infringing use. EULAs for retail software (i.e., bought over-the-counter, not as part of a contract deal) are only binding if you agree to them--and there are arguments from contract law that "click-thru" agreements that are not visible at the time of sale are not valid, as they are imposing conditions on the sale after the sale has been transacted.
So please stop using that old, tired argument for EULAs... unless you are a troll, of course.
Next time you're cold-called have *some* sympathy for the caller though as it is one of the most soul destroying jobs out there, having the phone slammed down and taking abuse 20 times an hour.
You know, if everybody hates you because of the job you do, maybe you should change jobs?
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the job stresses of people who make a living by phone harassment (or for those of IRS employees).
there exists no quick solution to getting rid of guns, obviously..
.30-06 if I feel like it--in season, of course.
...and a non sequitur follows. Because I believe people have a right to defend themselves, a bunch of fanatics fly a plane into a building? Gosh, I didn't know I had that much influence on world events!
Good. Then we can hang on to our guns during the phases when nutcases like you get in office and make laws.
but you have to start somewhere..
No, you don't.
making the sale of guns and ammo to the public illegal could be a nice starting point...
That would be a very bad starting point into tyranny and oppression. Fortunately it is unconstitutional in the U.S.
making the public TRULY aware of the horror of guns, instead of supporting them could be another..
Are you always that easily scared by inanimate pieces of metal?
the way you're describing guns here really amazes me... as if its your god given right to have the power in your hand to end someones life in an instant...
Well, actually it is. Self-defense is considered one of the self-evident human rights, and for people who were too foolish to figure it out, the guys who wrote the U.S. Constitution wrote it out explicitly in the 2nd Amendment.
i'd like to think that we've progressed FAR beyond the ass backward colonial american days when carrying arms was perhaps necessary to keep the redcoats at bay...
Unfortunately, we've regressed far from the enlightened early post-Revolution days when everyone understood the importance of freedom of speech, religion, association, the importance of limiting government power, and the overriding importance of keeping the means to "calibrate" governments that turn tyrannical-- arms in the hands of free men and women.
Unfortunately we haven't progressed beyond the need for self-defense, either. Perhaps you have; I'm curious to know what crime-free utopia you live in.
civilians have no excuse to carry guns..
Fortunately we don't need excuses. We have a Right to Bear Arms. I don't have to explain to you or the government why I choose to carry a gun, and that's the way it should be.
target shooting? boohoo, so you dont get to practice your m4d sniping skillz.. go play some counter-strike instead
You do that. I'll target-shoot to keep my gun skills sharp. Untrained fools with loaded guns are dangerous.
you dont need them to hunt - you go the store instead, or use a bow if you must absolutely kill your own food
You do that. I'll bag deer with a
you could use them against your government in case they became tyrannical - come on! you think youd stand a chance?
Yes, as long as none of my compatriots were like you. The government doesn't even consider doing a lot of crap because pissing off 200 million people with guns is a Very Bad Idea. I'd explain in detail, but your mind is already made up and I don't feel like bothering with the long side-argument that will entail.
you could use them to defend yourself from criminals - but then they could use them against you too.
Only if you hand them to the criminal first. Usually it's recommended that you shoot the bastard instead.
Sorry, I know you have to weasel out from under saying "you should just bend over and take it from criminals, because you have no right to defend yourself from predators"; even you think that sounds bad.
collecting guns - again, boohoo so some rich texan doesn't get to display his semi-automatic rifle collection on his wall.
So, whose collection are you jealous of? I can't think of anything else that inspired this comment.
if anything, guns are anything BUT mostly harmless...
I should hope not! If I use a gun, I want it to seriously harm what I'm shooting at!
but people like you, that have this fundamental belief that theyre essential to existance,
No, I just believe that guns are instruments of a basic, self-evident, inalienable human right: the right of self-defense.
are the reason why events like columbine, 9/11 and the latest sniper nut killings happen....
dont you think the gains clearly outweigh the losses?
Yes, I think the gains of retaining the Right to Keep and Bear Arms clearly outway the losses.
I prefer to use Orthene. One tablespoon nails a whole nest within the day.
...I want to see the little bastards die in writhing agony. En masse. Squashing them is just too inefficient.
But then, I really, really hate fire ants. Ever accidently stepped in a nest of the little buggers? Fire ants are the rabid, poison-fanged, enemies of all mobile life besides themselves; they will happily swarm over any creature of any size that disturbs their nest and try to bite it to death.
If you ever read the UCMJ, you'd know that the penalty for rape can be death. Ditto for desertion... it's just that the government does not usually choose to exercise the death penalty option.
Also, military prisons are considered "hard time", not country clubs. The expression I always heard was "spend a few years making little rocks out of big ones up at Leavenworth".
..is by the anti-American anti-DMCA morons in Europe.
...morons
Anti-DMCA
Yeah, the DMCA has some very bad provisions that need to be re-done or tossed entirely. It has a few good sections, too--like the clause that says copying a program to memory to run it or installing it on your hard disk is a de jure non-infringing use of a copyrighted work. Said clause invalidates the old traditional basis of EULAs--that normal use is infringing by definition, therefore you must have a license to use your software. Nope, not any more. The only remaining basis for EULAs is contract law, and unilaterally-imposed, no-signature, after-the-sale contract conditions are a bit shady, to say the least. So, part of the DMCA is good--it gives us a legal basis to trash bad EULAs.
We want to get rid of the idiotic "circumvention device" clauses--the ones that are being mercilessly abused to supppress competition and research, and the one-sided "safe harbor" provisions that are used to chill free speech by intimidating Hosting Services into yanking perfectly legal speech from the web until its proven innocent at the time and expense of the victim. The provisions of the DMCA that are abused show us which provisions need to be tossed or re-done. It's being looked at, and the more obnoxious provisions are getting wrung out by the courts.
Anti-American
So Free Software is now only "free" to countries whose politics you agree with? What a load of crap! I don't see anyone making sites of software and information available to everyone except, say, China or Saudi Arabia. Why not? You could be arrested if you went to China after saying anything bad about their political system, or arrested if you went to Saudi Arabia while publishing a website with scantily-clad women on it--or pirate copies of "Satanic Verses".
While you're at it, better block all French sites if you discuss WWII or mid-20th century European history--you might mention Nazis. Better block Germany if you are a religious site that says rude things about anyone else's religion--even in a historical context. Thomas Payne's papers are extremely inflammatory and insulting toward the British monarchy, so Project Gutenberg had better block Great Britain--I think lese majestie is still a crime over there. Any site that hosts the writings of Martin Luther had better block most of the majority-Catholic countries in the world--I believe it is a crime in Italy and Germany to defame the Church.
Shall I continue? The Un-Freeworld site is run by a bunch of hypocrites, and Alan Cox is just as much a hypocrite if he supports it. A bunch of Europeans have decided they are going to take their ball and go home because we Americans won't play the way they want, when they want--then they have the temerity to call themselves supporters of "free" software.
Ballocks.
Free software is NOT about "you can't see my code if I don't like your politics". The latter is called CENSORSHIP . Anyone with the attitude of this so-called TheFreeWorld site is a damn liar and hypocrite if he calls himself a support of free software, because he's just another fucking censor.
Oh yeah, the Freeword site claims to restrict access to non-U.S. computers, but it does not. I downloaded stuff from it just fine. Like every other fill-in-the-form, jump-through-the-stupid-hoops site, you lie through your teeth to get at the "free" content. And ignore the stupid license with the stupid unenforceable threats.
Hypocritical morons.
You're missing the point, and so are most of the comentators above. The argument isn't "this is bad", the argument should be "The Law of Supply and Demand is INEXORABLE."
We all know that when the Supply of a good is greater than the Demand, prices drop until Demand equals Supply. Conversely, when Demand exceeds Supply, the price rises until Demand falls off to the level of available Supply.
This Law CANNOT be circumvented, no matter how hard you try. It just turns around and bites you on the ass if you do.
Classic methods of attempting to circumvent the Law of Supply and Demand:
1) Attempt to fix the price artificially low by goverment fiat. (the old Soviet Union)
Market Response) Instant shortages, as too-low-priced goods disappear off the shelf. Demand rises as Supply drops to non-existant, and the price people are willing to pay becomes sufficiently high that an extra-legal black market comes into existance. Black market prices are significantly higher than legal market prices, but the supply is much better.
2) Attempt to fix the supply artificially low by government fiat. (War-time Rationing).
Market Response) If the Demand is sufficiently high, again a black market will develop to Supply that Demand. Black market prices will be higher than legal market prices.
2) Attempt to fix the price artificially high for the available Supply through monopoly control, price-fixing, whatever. (What the RIAA is doing)
Market Response) Create alternate sources of Supply by evading the monopolist control (buying Region 1 DVDs and playing them on your Region-Free player in Europe), monopoly-busting (remember Standard Oil? Ma Bell?), product substitution (buying DVDs or video games instead of CDs), cottage industry/black market (home ripping and sharing of MP3s, indie bands). Or, if the item is a luxury, demand drops to zero. A black market will only develop if the monopoly price is so excessive that the black marketeer can sell his goods at sufficient profit to cover his risks, and still sell at a price consistant with Demand.
Since the current CD-ripping and file sharing market has very low risk and very low distribution costs, a black market is inevitable. If the risks become higher, because of future draconian laws that are enforced, casual ripping and sharing will die out--and so will the monopoly music business. CDs are a luxury, and if overpriced, people can do without or substitute other forms of entertainment. We are already seeing this!
THAT is what people are pointing out.
but if we leave DC to only those who can take the weather, then we really will be leaving it to the swamp dwellers.
(Pictures New Orleans city politics applied to the whole nation.)
(Shudders and wakes abruptly from that evil nightmare...)
OTOH, I hear Hawaii's weather compares favorably to northern California.
Not only that, DC weather looks NICE from where I sit...
Am I the only one here that likes the RioOne? It's cheap, it's easily expandible using SmartMedia Flash memory (currently using 128MB Flash ROM), and it is a USB mass storage device using VFAT file system -- load the USB mass storage and appropriate SCSI drivers in your kernel, just mount the thing as another device on your filesystem, and use your favorite file manage to move MP3 files back and forth.
Simple... BUT THIS INFORMATION WAS A DOUBLE-BITCH TO FIND IN THE FIRST PLACE! Why isn't there easy-to-find documentation on how to hook up various MP3 players to Linux? You'd think it was a deep, dark secret known only to '3l33t haX0rs' or something!
And there is *NO* book out there that I have *EVER* heard that beats Honor Harrington in space combat.
Ever read anything by E. E. "Doc" Smith?
The Lensmen series is his best known work, and has some great space battles, but my favorite (probably because I read when I was a child) has always been the older Skylark series. Doc Smith pretty much defined the "space opera" battlefield in his stories.
BTW, if you do read the Skylark series, put on your historical perspective glasses first. All but the last book in the series were written pre-WWII, and the first one in particular have some serious cheerleading for eugenics--a popular, progressive trend-of-the-future back in the 1920s and 30s, but cringe-inducing post-WWII, after we saw what the Nazis did with it.
I do not comment on the ethics or morals of this action or other such actions that will ensue; I merely comment on the inevitability.
The RIAA and the MPAA, along with Microsoft, have worked hard to give themselves such an atrocious reputation as oppressive monopolists that it is inevitable that those who believe themselves oppressed by them see them as evil tyrants, to be resisted by any and all means. Every attempt by the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft to use punitive measures against their ostensible customers and bystanders will simply worsen their own reputation.
The more oppressive they act, the more people will feel justified in treating them as tyrants and enemies: use any means necessary to defeat them and depose them from power. In a war against an enemy, one does not worry about the enemy's property rights, or feelings, or legal niceties. You destroy the enemy.
As more people regard the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft as enemies rather than legitimate societal organizations, fewer people will have any moral compunctions about stealing from them, crippling their businesses, destroying their propery, ruining their individual and corporate reputations, and worse. Why should they? It is not immoral to overthrow a tyrant; in fact, it is immoral to leave one in place.
I am not saying that this is a good or right thing, nor am I saying that it is bad: I am saying that it is inevitable . Every abuse of the law by such monopolistic organizations to suppress competition and extort their would-be customers will only cause more and more people to view them as enemies and tyrants, with all that goes with it.
How long before every new movie and studio website is DDOS'd into oblivion the day it is hosted, never to be seen by the public? How long before every record company has to shut down its online store because it is DOS'd and hacked into oblivion? How long before every Microsoft and Adobe product are floating around on the Internet, free for the download, with special patches to disable all license keys and "product activation" checks? How long before every new album and movie is available before it is publically released? (I know, already happens).
How long before enough of the general public finds this morally acceptable for the reasons discussed above, and thus puts the monopolists out of business?
Most people are honest, and don't steal--but when the target is seen as a rich, oppressive tyrant who can only be hurt by theft, how long before theft becomes socially and morally acceptable--and done by everyone?
Somebody, somewhere needs to take a sanity check, because the implications of the inevitable are terrifying.
I've watched Forbes for years, so I can see two things in this: one, a certain contingent of Forbes editors and reporters have always been in love with cool tech toys--read Forbes ASAP some time. They've been watching and occasionally commenting on Linux for years now.
Two, Forbes editors and senior reporters seem to have a certain disdain for dodgy practices in business--they seem to have the attitude that companies that do dodgy stuff may not be the greatest long-term investments out there. After all, they might be dodgy in their bookkeeping, too. I will note that Forbes magazine was saying rude things about the "non-profit" business plans of the dot.bombs back when they were still the darlings of Wall Street, and that Forbes magazine has been commenting on the dodgy accounting at Enron and other companies for some time now--before it made the mainstream press.
Where am I going with this? Microsoft is notorious for its dodgy anti-competitive practices. Linux and Open Source is generally anything but dodgy. Draw your own conclusions.
The way the ring is destroyed in the end is, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the books. The entire point of that scene is to show that no living being could have the willpower to throw the ring into the fire, so great was its powers of temptation and treachery. (Spoiler ahead, watch yourself folks.) Having Gollum seize the ring from Frodo and then fall into the pit amidst his excitement over being reunited with his precious further refutes your claim about foreshadowing, as it fulfills the predictions Gandalf made way back in the Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf specifically wanrs Frodo not to kill Gollum, both out of pity and because Gandalf felt that Gollum still had some purpose to fulfill. If Frodo had ignored that advice and killed Gollum, ironically, he would have doomed all of existance to defeat at the hands of Sauron. In my opinion, that scene was very, very well done.
You missed the great irony that makes that scene even more delicious: It is the power of the One Ring that causes Gollum to throw himself into the fire!
If you remember, sometime previously Gollum promised to be good and help the hobbits, and Frodo made him swear on the One Ring. Frodo warned Gollum that the Ring would hold him to his oath, though it would try and twist it, and he later promised, by the power of the One Ring, that he, Frodo, would use the ring to order Gollum to cast himself into the fire if Gollum betrayed them--and Gollum would be helpless to disobey the Ring. It seems clear to me that the One Ring carried out Frodo's command when Gollum attacked Frodo in the pits of Summauth Naur, even though Frodo was no longer wearing the ring--perhaps because of Gollum's oath on the Ring.
Yes, really. My mailbox is constantly full of the damn things (well, that, and SPAM from Korea). I have a number of readers of my small fanfiction page, and I think they all use Windows/Outlook Express, so there you go. They are not computer geeks; they know how to use a computer to read and send e-mail, to browse the web, and to write stuff/design websites in some cases, but, like most Windows users, their computers are tools to get a job done, not a way of life.
I, on the other hand, am a programmer who uses Linux at home; I didn't get infected by those damn Klez viruses, nor do I even download them--I limit fetchmail on the size of attachment and inspect the oversized mails thru my ISP's web interface every few days. Almost everytime, they are Klez viruses, though I'm also seeing some Goldfish thingy, starting recently.
I'm really, really sick of this crap filling up my mailbox. It's viral spam: an unspeakable hybrid of two of the worst internet evils.
I agree. Think of food as something which is supposed to taste good--in fact, get picky. Eat tasty, fresh, ripe fruit, lighly sauteed vegetables that still have crunch and flavor, fresh cooked fish/chicken/etc in your choice of herbs and sauces....
Avoid over-processed snack food which really tastes like salted (or sweetened) shit when you compare it to real food. Face it, do snack foods really taste that great, or do you just eat them out of habit and hunger pangs? And because they are the only thing in the vending machine/at the convenience store?
I've been caffiene-free for several years now, but have a fair amount of experience in kicking the addiction. When you stop drinking, about the time you would crave another coffee/coke/whatever, start taking [aspirin/Tylenol/your favorite headache pill] before the headaches start. Take it as directed every n hours; it will seriously cut down the intensity of the withdrawal headaches. Second, resign yourself to the fact that you are going to be depressed, exhausted and very sleepy for a few days; don't go back to the caffiene to fix it or you will have wasted all the pain you just went through. Just ride it out; it'll be over with in a few days.
Once you've been free and clear of caffiene for a while, you'll notice that you sleep a lot better now, too, but you can't pull those all-nighters without--surprise!--getting sleepy and tired. Yes, now you're a normal human being, not a speed addict. Get a good night's sleep regularly, or you may have problems with fatigue and depression.
Watch out for caffiene hidden in soft drinks that you don't expect to have it, because you will find that you are very sensitive to caffiene once you've been off it for a while--that built-up tolerance went away, and one can of caffienated soda will keep you awake half the night--and give you a headache 3 days later.
I never could taper off. If I reduced my caffiene intake at all, I got withdrawal headaches.
I have a problem with the contention, seen here and elsewhere, that Asian diets are low-fat and high-carbohydrate. Which planet's Asia are you talking about?
My experience as a cook has been that Japanese and Chinese food is low-carbohydrate, fairly high-fat. Lots and lots of vegetables, and everything either deep-fried or stir-fried--and anyone who tells you stir-fry is low-fat is seriously confused. It's only lower fat than deep-frying; that isn't much. The only high-carbohydrate aspect is the use of white rice, and that is a raw grain, not a processed, refined, sweetened flour product. It has more of the fiber that slows down carbohydrate uptake as described in the article. Noodles and various wraps are those "evil" high-carb processed foods, but they are anywhere near as much of the cuisine as vegetables and rice.
In short, two major Asian cuisines are medium to high fat, low carbohydrate.
Indian cuisine is almost all vegetables and fruit dishes with a few pastries. Again, low-carb.
Which Asian cuisines were you talking about?
Also note that here in the Netherlands we think differently about freedom of speech (and press) than the US. While Americans are keen on absolute freedom, we dutch put a couple of restrictions on things, like racism and discrimination ofcourse, but also like bringing people to commit violence (like the articles in question).
The fact that your country allows and encourages involuntary euthanasia leaves me rather unimpressed with any Dutch arguments about how wonderful your censorship is. Your legal system is morally bankrupt. Hopefully Indymedia and Radikal can both move their controversial but free speech to American servers, and tell both the Dutch and German governments to go take a flying leap into freefall.
History has proven that only tyrants and would-be tyrants are afraid of free speech. Only fools think that violence and crime can be prevented by not talking about it. Which do they have in the Dutch and German governments, would-be tyrants or fools?