If they do decide to bring back Futurama, I hope they'll go back to standalone episodes rather than movies cut up into four episodes. I don't mind an occasional "to be continued", but I find Futurama works better in half-hour chunks.
I'm saying that your claim that journalism cannot survive without the hot news doctrine is absolutely ridiculous, given that it's survived all along pretty much without it. I don't care to get into arguments about nuclear weapons or, as with the poster below you, murder convictions. I only care about the claim that corporations should be granted an exclusive right to facts under the guise that their business model becomes impossible for failure to do so.
If I didn't explicitly address the cost of journalism it's because I addressed the hot news doctrine itself, which you claimed was necessary for news organizations to be able to recoup their costs. No need for the hot news doctrine implies no need for news organizations to rely on it to recoup their costs. It's straightforward logic.
Your assertion about the hot news doctrine being unnecessary has absolutely no basis in reality, unless you consider original journalism and fact-finding to be unnecessary.
The fact that the hot news doctrine is rarely invoked coupled with the fact that AP is still around suggests your objection is entirely without merit. The AP is doing fine without the hot news doctrine, so let's get rid of it for good.
The news still has to be carried by one or more newspapers before the papers that don't subscribe to AP can relay the facts represented in AP news stories. That means the AP gets paid, just as it's been getting paid all this time. The "hot news" doctrine is as about as unnecessary as it is rare, and the AP can survive without it.
Google for some reason reminds me of an Octopus, due to all the stuff they're getting involved in. It's enough to concern me, but so far not enough to convince me that any kind of intervention is required. I do, however, wish we'd stop thinking they do no evil simply because it's their motto.
Agreed. For all we know, the problems this guy is having with his sound card are due to a driver bug or incompatibility rather than an intentional crippling of the audio, while the problems he's having with Photoshop and the problems with his Local Settings folder are due to introducing foreign code that messes up Windows in ways that Microsoft could not have anticipated.
Besides... why would the current version of Photoshop be coded against undocumented features in still unreleased Windows 7?
I am Willing to abandon Windows over draconian DRM, but I want evidence of that before I'll lambast Microsoft for it.
How about a system where the bulk of the profits go to the workers instead of to greedy executives who are paid many million dollars a year in great disproportion to their actual contribution?
It won't let me watch from Puerto Rico: "The video you have requested is unavailable. Please visit www.cbs.com for current videos."
You really gotta love these TV networks. Here we have a global network -- the modern wonder that is the Internet -- and the TV networks can't think of anything better to do than to impose the same old territorial divisions through entirely artificial means. Reaching a global audience used to be a technical challenge, but with the Internet there is no longer any need for that. I can't wait for the day when these "old fart" networks are displaced by their modern counterparts.
Then there's ESPN, that wants to impose the cable TV model upon ISPs...
I don't think I'll be buying any more PC games myself, unless I know them to include no DRM. Just yesterday I had to remove SecuROM from my system after learning that certain executables (such as empty EXEs left over from failed downloads) could not be deleted. I remembered there being an issue with SecuROM preventing deletion of 16-bit EXEs, and that's how I discovered SecuROM was installed on my system. After removing it using Sony's own removal tool, I regained the ability to delete these executables.
I hope my computer is back to normal now, but I'm never buying a SecuROM infected product if I can help it.
It is that terrible because it's an underhanded way to force everyone on the internet to pay them. This is fundamentally no different than the fee that the RIAA wants put into place on all internet users. They want you to pay whether you want the service or now (guilty or not). And they want you to think that you're getting it for free.
Precisely. The sneakiest bit is their use of the word "free", which suggests ISPs will not be allowed to charge anything extra to those who might otherwise choose an ESPN360.com "package" (like with premium cable channels). They get more money if everybody has to pay for ESPN360 than if only those who want it have to pay.
If this law passes, expect an increase in the enforcement of laws against loitering, public drunkenness and vagrancy. Nothing better than the enforcement of vague laws to enable a DMA fishing expedition.
No kidding. It annoys me to no end when I try to play a stream from some content provider only to find the content is not available in my area. Living in Puerto Rico -- a US territory that many US companies treat like a foreign country -- I am often barred from watching shows online that are playing on my TV at that very moment, even after following the link that was advertised on the very show I am currently watching. It's so ridiculous.
Here in Puerto Rico I can get Hulu but I can't get NBC online. It's fucking ridiculous.
Given Microsoft's track record with security, I worry:
- Windows user installs Firefox to avoid IE's security flaws. - Microsoft silently installs a plugin onto Firefox that reports the browser includes.NET functionality allows websites to host.NET executables. - Hackers discover a way to exploit this. - Thus, Firefox is now less secure thanks to Microsoft.
OK. I just sent an encrypted RAR with encrypted filenames over GMail's web interface and it did not complain. Google must have changed its policy. I recall encountering the problem while trying to send an EXE file to a coworker. GMail wouldn't let me send an executable, so I tried sending the EXE inside an encrypted RAR file and it still wouldn't let me.
How will they make money with this service? Will they charge a subscription fee or will it be supported via ads like most of their services? If it's going to be ad-supported, that probably means encrypted files will not be permitted [Ever try to send a fully encrypted RAR file through GMail? You can't.], which doesn't sit too well with me.
Slashdot Mirror
If they do decide to bring back Futurama, I hope they'll go back to standalone episodes rather than movies cut up into four episodes. I don't mind an occasional "to be continued", but I find Futurama works better in half-hour chunks.
I'm saying that your claim that journalism cannot survive without the hot news doctrine is absolutely ridiculous, given that it's survived all along pretty much without it. I don't care to get into arguments about nuclear weapons or, as with the poster below you, murder convictions. I only care about the claim that corporations should be granted an exclusive right to facts under the guise that their business model becomes impossible for failure to do so.
If I didn't explicitly address the cost of journalism it's because I addressed the hot news doctrine itself, which you claimed was necessary for news organizations to be able to recoup their costs. No need for the hot news doctrine implies no need for news organizations to rely on it to recoup their costs. It's straightforward logic.
The fact that the hot news doctrine is rarely invoked coupled with the fact that AP is still around suggests your objection is entirely without merit. The AP is doing fine without the hot news doctrine, so let's get rid of it for good.
The news still has to be carried by one or more newspapers before the papers that don't subscribe to AP can relay the facts represented in AP news stories. That means the AP gets paid, just as it's been getting paid all this time. The "hot news" doctrine is as about as unnecessary as it is rare, and the AP can survive without it.
No incentive at all? So the fact that most national stories that papers do publish don't generally raise such an issue means nothing to you?
The incentive is there. Beat the other papers to the scoop, forcing the other papers to follow rather than lead.
Just imagine...
Massive Asteroid Headed for Earth.
In other news: AP victorious in pre-publication motion to prevent competitors from carrying asteroid story.
Google for some reason reminds me of an Octopus, due to all the stuff they're getting involved in. It's enough to concern me, but so far not enough to convince me that any kind of intervention is required. I do, however, wish we'd stop thinking they do no evil simply because it's their motto.
Agreed. For all we know, the problems this guy is having with his sound card are due to a driver bug or incompatibility rather than an intentional crippling of the audio, while the problems he's having with Photoshop and the problems with his Local Settings folder are due to introducing foreign code that messes up Windows in ways that Microsoft could not have anticipated.
Besides... why would the current version of Photoshop be coded against undocumented features in still unreleased Windows 7?
I am Willing to abandon Windows over draconian DRM, but I want evidence of that before I'll lambast Microsoft for it.
How about a system where the bulk of the profits go to the workers instead of to greedy executives who are paid many million dollars a year in great disproportion to their actual contribution?
So... they invented packet sniffing?
Upgrade CD / DVD contents:
update.bat:
sed s/Vista/7
I just found this 2005 MSNBC article that talks about Qchex.com (the company mentioned in the above), and check security.
Checks are insecure. The lesson: withdrawing money from people's account should require more than an account and bank routing number.
Google makes billions of dollars on advertising. The international nature of the Internet has not impeded this.
It won't let me watch from Puerto Rico: "The video you have requested is unavailable. Please visit www.cbs.com for current videos."
You really gotta love these TV networks. Here we have a global network -- the modern wonder that is the Internet -- and the TV networks can't think of anything better to do than to impose the same old territorial divisions through entirely artificial means. Reaching a global audience used to be a technical challenge, but with the Internet there is no longer any need for that. I can't wait for the day when these "old fart" networks are displaced by their modern counterparts.
Then there's ESPN, that wants to impose the cable TV model upon ISPs...
I say again... I can't wait for the day.
I don't think I'll be buying any more PC games myself, unless I know them to include no DRM. Just yesterday I had to remove SecuROM from my system after learning that certain executables (such as empty EXEs left over from failed downloads) could not be deleted. I remembered there being an issue with SecuROM preventing deletion of 16-bit EXEs, and that's how I discovered SecuROM was installed on my system. After removing it using Sony's own removal tool, I regained the ability to delete these executables.
I hope my computer is back to normal now, but I'm never buying a SecuROM infected product if I can help it.
Precisely. The sneakiest bit is their use of the word "free", which suggests ISPs will not be allowed to charge anything extra to those who might otherwise choose an ESPN360.com "package" (like with premium cable channels). They get more money if everybody has to pay for ESPN360 than if only those who want it have to pay.
But... the 'M' is right next to the 'N', you insensitive clod!
DMA forensics would indeed be scary, though.
If this law passes, expect an increase in the enforcement of laws against loitering, public drunkenness and vagrancy. Nothing better than the enforcement of vague laws to enable a DMA fishing expedition.
No kidding. It annoys me to no end when I try to play a stream from some content provider only to find the content is not available in my area. Living in Puerto Rico -- a US territory that many US companies treat like a foreign country -- I am often barred from watching shows online that are playing on my TV at that very moment, even after following the link that was advertised on the very show I am currently watching. It's so ridiculous.
Here in Puerto Rico I can get Hulu but I can't get NBC online. It's fucking ridiculous.
Given Microsoft's track record with security, I worry:
- Windows user installs Firefox to avoid IE's security flaws. .NET functionality allows websites to host .NET executables.
- Microsoft silently installs a plugin onto Firefox that reports the browser includes
- Hackers discover a way to exploit this.
- Thus, Firefox is now less secure thanks to Microsoft.
OK. I just sent an encrypted RAR with encrypted filenames over GMail's web interface and it did not complain. Google must have changed its policy. I recall encountering the problem while trying to send an EXE file to a coworker. GMail wouldn't let me send an executable, so I tried sending the EXE inside an encrypted RAR file and it still wouldn't let me.
Try emailing a RAR files that's encrypted in such a manner that filenames aren't visible. It won't let you.
How will they make money with this service? Will they charge a subscription fee or will it be supported via ads like most of their services? If it's going to be ad-supported, that probably means encrypted files will not be permitted [Ever try to send a fully encrypted RAR file through GMail? You can't.], which doesn't sit too well with me.
I wonder this might be used for nefarious purposes.