cases like this that demonstrate the flaws inherent in the GPL license, in that it is not 'free' at all. A truly free license is one that allows you to do whatever you want to do with the code, such as the BSD licenses
The BSD licenses demand you attribute copyright. Therefore, they are not completely "free" as you describe it.
The only possible truly "free" software license is the public domain, and any author can contribute his original work to it should he wish.
How bizarre. Even fans of Reloaded all agree the first one is untoppable. Plot, acting, and editing are all spot-on. The fact you've only seen it twice just tells me you weren't really a fan of the Matrix to begin with, so it makes sense you'd like the second one more.
Oh, come on. You claim to speak for "the fans of Reloaded". I can tell you now, out of about the 40 people I went to see Reloaded with, we were split just marginally more than 50/50 that the original was better, and of the people I've spoken to about it since, it's probably similar results. The original wins out, but only very marginally.
The sequels just seemed like sequels for sequels sake and I feel actually detract from the imagination and impact of the first film.
No-one forces you to watch them... you can just buy a copy of The Matrix and watch it forever.
For many people, the second was far far better than the first. I recently watched the two in a row and it was only the second time I've seen "The Matrix" and it brought home to me what a better movie overall "Reloaded" is.
No, not all of humanity just corporate executives... but they're species has always been questionable anyway.
Right now I'm a/. reader, DMCA hater and I make complaints and write letters. Hmm, I'm about to start a company. If I'm really succesful and in 5 years I employee 50 staff and wear a suit and play golf most days, did I become evil, or was I evil to start with?
This is why properly washing your hands often is so important in stopping the spread of contagious diseases.
For some people this is very true - for others we just don't care. Having been the kid who always bit his fingers+nails, put his hands in his mouth and ate stuff that was a little too old/spilled on the floor etc. I've probably had very low doses of just about everything going.
By ensuring that you don't do things STUPIDLY dirty you can effectively vaccinate yourself against many things early in life. People who incessantly clean everything merely condemn their children to living their adult lives unwell (unless they too are ridiculously hygienic) as they have no chance to build up a resistance to common infections.
If something falls on the floor, I blow dust off and eat it, I don't wash my hands except if I've been handlin particularly nasty/messy stuff and I haven't been ill beyond a bad cold (or hangover) in 10 years.
When you bought the system, you did read that little card that came with it.
I don't own an X-Box but I can tell you that I honestly don't read any inserts/cards/brochures/leaflets/books that fall out of a unit when I open a new electronic device unless I subsequently have a problem operating said device (read : never unless it's DOA). The vast majority of it is marketing crap designed to waste your time and make you spend more money on stuff you don't need (I work in marketing) so... why would I read any of it?
- eBay will be able to lock out all but some verified list of applications from accessing auction data, so that application to raise bids at the last minute can't be used.
This is somehow bad? If this happens, auctions will work the way they are intended to (and the way they work best). Fairer prices for all.
- Microsoft recently kicked off other application from their IM system for "security reasons". As it stands now, this can be hacked around, do you think they'll hestitate to use TCPA to make that impossible? You think AOL are any different.
They are running the chat servers, it's up to them what data they send out and receive. If this happens, more people will migrate away to open chat networks.
- Websites will be able to lock out browsers that can block pop-up ads, or that allow cookies to be cleared, or that lie about themselves in the User-Agent string.
This is a good thing - content owners can choose to send away potential visitors who would not see pop-up ads. In time, sites which do not use popup ads will become more common and more succesful.
- Games will be able to lock out modified versions.
This is an exceptionally good benefit. A really strong way to prevent people cheating in online games.
- Given the common confusion that TCPA is about "security", how long do think it will be until your bank starts requiring it?
They cater for blind, deaf, and even people with mere 56k connections but they don't cater for anyone who doesn't use Microsoft.
People who are blind or deaf did not choose to be so, many people on 56k connections do not have a faster alternative, on the other hand anyone who wants to can buy a Microsoft Operating System if they have a PC.
Try complaining on behalf of people who do not own a PC, as they cannot currently access it all.
"Turn the other cheek" doesn't cut it with certain types of enemies. They know this, and you know this.
"Turn the other cheek" is not for the benefit of your enemies it is for your own benefit, so you can progress and grow as a person and become more contented in life with your inner self.
I am neither religious nor particularly spiritual, but I understand this much.
Actually, the rapid growth of endorsements, product placements, "documentaries" about products etc. means that you're really seeing far more than just 12 minutes of advertising, the only restriction is that you're limited to 12 minutes of OBVIOUS advertising.
There's no reason to use non-animated gif rather than PNG.
Actually, there is. Some browsers do not yet implement gamma properly for PNGs, so you cannot be assured of the colour that will show, which means you cannot match it to HTML colours, or colours in JPEGs.
For any company which prizes its' brand, this is incredibly important.
If they really want to avoid getting scraped, they should just get their existing, underpaid web developers to create a backend setup that generates the prices as gif's that give OCR hell (such as those used to prevent automated registration of say Yahoo! email accounts).
If they were to do this, would they not be falling foul of accessibility regulations for users with disabilities? People who use screen readers, or anyone who needs to increase text size to read off the screen will be unable to purchase their products.
I'm a UK resident, so not entirely sure, but I believe you have something called "508" in the US, which is a government regulation mandating accessible websites for certain companies, I'm not sure what the criteria are for selecting companies though I'm quite sure this would break the regulations.
the idea of a "brain in a vat" that would live a simulated existence. The possibility of such a brain leads us to question what we can call real. Is our entire life just simulated? Would we be able to tell? Does it even matter? These are important questions.
They are? Other than gaining research grants or qualifications, what possible use can the answers to those questions have, or what value can the work used to answer those questions have?
I know this might sound like a troll, I'm just curious as to why someone with a degree in philosophy would consider such questions to be important when most of us would consider them trivial.
Also, when we prosecute drug dealers we create a vacuum in the market that is quickly filled with more entrepreneurs. Soon every street corner is spoken for. If we were to stop prosecuting them, the market would quickly saturate and the price of drugs would fall, decreasing the profit motive.
There is no mechanism like that for spam. An existing spammer population doesn't deter more spammers from entering the "occupation"- until everyone just gives up on email.
I think an existing spammer population does deter more spammers. There are only so many companies, with budgets so large prepared to spend their money to spammers. If we remove spammers from the population, the level of spam supply drops and consequently people move in to fulfill the demand, or the price rises with supply staying the same for some time until the increase in price becomes attractive enough to create a better supply.
IMO, not much different than killing animals, except that a human could tell you how much it sucked living in a cage your whole life then being killed.
Animals can already tell us how much it sucks and they do, it's just that we choose to ignore the signs.
Further, I doubt a human could tell you how much it sucked to be killed.
if the Internet traffic resulting directly from the activities of these 180 people were to stop, the number of spam emails arriving in your Inbox would drop almost to zero.
Just like, if we prosecute all the drug dealers, the amount of drugs on the streets will drop?
This is an amazing comment on the ineffectiveness of spam. More than 98% of all spam messages are deleted unseen (or bounced).
Actually, I'm surprised by the effectiveness, 2% is superb. I work for a marketing company who don't use email marketing but do printing, and this entails many mailshots, postcard campaigns etc. sent via snail mail. Almost all non-personalised snail mail campaigns fall into the 1.5% - 5.0% response range - that is, fairly similar to spam, but costing orders of magnitudes more to send.
A stated tactic of the coalition early in the war to take cities like Basra, Um Qasr etc. was to cutoff the food water and electricity to the cities troublesome neighbourhoods in the hope that the residents would rise up against the Iraqi defenders, or at least make life more difficult for them, turn them in etc.
When I heard this openly stated on the news I was absolutely terrified that my government could contemplate a tactic like this in a war with debatable legitimacy.
If you fight the monster, you become more like him.
You got it backwards. "Digital Rights Management" is Orwellian. It sounds as if it is the opposite of what it actually means.
"Digital Restrictions Management" is a more accurate term.
So you say, but I disagree. It protects the *rights* of the authors (as defined by law) but also *restricts* the user... either definition is correct. My comment did not attempt to establish the "correctness" of either version of the acronym, just to point out that there are multiple viewpoints, and that a huge number of people on here are very hypocritical.
Slashdot Mirror
The BSD licenses demand you attribute copyright. Therefore, they are not completely "free" as you describe it.
The only possible truly "free" software license is the public domain, and any author can contribute his original work to it should he wish.
Oh, come on. You claim to speak for "the fans of Reloaded". I can tell you now, out of about the 40 people I went to see Reloaded with, we were split just marginally more than 50/50 that the original was better, and of the people I've spoken to about it since, it's probably similar results.
The original wins out, but only very marginally.
No-one forces you to watch them... you can just buy a copy of The Matrix and watch it forever.
For many people, the second was far far better than the first. I recently watched the two in a row and it was only the second time I've seen "The Matrix" and it brought home to me what a better movie overall "Reloaded" is.
Right now I'm a
This is analogous to saying that poor house building regulations and standards means more jobs for builders, plasterers, repairmen, plumbers etc.
It does mean more jobs, however more jobs != a good thing - you're using the wrong metrics.
For some people this is very true - for others we just don't care.
Having been the kid who always bit his fingers+nails, put his hands in his mouth and ate stuff that was a little too old/spilled on the floor etc. I've probably had very low doses of just about everything going.
By ensuring that you don't do things STUPIDLY dirty you can effectively vaccinate yourself against many things early in life. People who incessantly clean everything merely condemn their children to living their adult lives unwell (unless they too are ridiculously hygienic) as they have no chance to build up a resistance to common infections.
If something falls on the floor, I blow dust off and eat it, I don't wash my hands except if I've been handlin particularly nasty/messy stuff and I haven't been ill beyond a bad cold (or hangover) in 10 years.
I doubt it, this would be illegal in most countries. The game was not sold with a notice of subscription required, or as a service.
The vast majority of it is marketing crap designed to waste your time and make you spend more money on stuff you don't need (I work in marketing) so... why would I read any of it?
The majority of his tax cuts went to those at the lower end of the ethical spectrum.
They are running the chat servers, it's up to them what data they send out and receive. If this happens, more people will migrate away to open chat networks.
This is a good thing - content owners can choose to send away potential visitors who would not see pop-up ads. In time, sites which do not use popup ads will become more common and more succesful.
This is an exceptionally good benefit. A really strong way to prevent people cheating in online games.
I can't see any negative consequences of this?
I'm not sure how justice works in the USA, but here in the UK you are notified if someone initiates legal action against you...
People who are blind or deaf did not choose to be so, many people on 56k connections do not have a faster alternative, on the other hand anyone who wants to can buy a Microsoft Operating System if they have a PC.
Try complaining on behalf of people who do not own a PC, as they cannot currently access it all.
I am neither religious nor particularly spiritual, but I understand this much.
Actually, the rapid growth of endorsements, product placements, "documentaries" about products etc. means that you're really seeing far more than just 12 minutes of advertising, the only restriction is that you're limited to 12 minutes of OBVIOUS advertising.
There's no reason to use non-animated gif rather than PNG.
Actually, there is. Some browsers do not yet implement gamma properly for PNGs, so you cannot be assured of the colour that will show, which means you cannot match it to HTML colours, or colours in JPEGs.
For any company which prizes its' brand, this is incredibly important.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG^C
Sorry, got stuck in an infinite recursive loop.
Looks rather finite to me...
If they really want to avoid getting scraped, they should just get their existing, underpaid web developers to create a backend setup that generates the prices as gif's that give OCR hell (such as those used to prevent automated registration of say Yahoo! email accounts).
If they were to do this, would they not be falling foul of accessibility regulations for users with disabilities? People who use screen readers, or anyone who needs to increase text size to read off the screen will be unable to purchase their products.
I'm a UK resident, so not entirely sure, but I believe you have something called "508" in the US, which is a government regulation mandating accessible websites for certain companies, I'm not sure what the criteria are for selecting companies though I'm quite sure this would break the regulations.
why SMP nowadays?
Penis. Size.
They are? Other than gaining research grants or qualifications, what possible use can the answers to those questions have, or what value can the work used to answer those questions have?
I know this might sound like a troll, I'm just curious as to why someone with a degree in philosophy would consider such questions to be important when most of us would consider them trivial.
I think an existing spammer population does deter more spammers. There are only so many companies, with budgets so large prepared to spend their money to spammers. If we remove spammers from the population, the level of spam supply drops and consequently people move in to fulfill the demand, or the price rises with supply staying the same for some time until the increase in price becomes attractive enough to create a better supply.
It's exactly the same as any industry.
Animals can already tell us how much it sucks and they do, it's just that we choose to ignore the signs.
Further, I doubt a human could tell you how much it sucked to be killed.
Just like, if we prosecute all the drug dealers, the amount of drugs on the streets will drop?
A stated tactic of the coalition early in the war to take cities like Basra, Um Qasr etc. was to cutoff the food water and electricity to the cities troublesome neighbourhoods in the hope that the residents would rise up against the Iraqi defenders, or at least make life more difficult for them, turn them in etc.
When I heard this openly stated on the news I was absolutely terrified that my government could contemplate a tactic like this in a war with debatable legitimacy.
If you fight the monster, you become more like him.
You got it backwards. "Digital Rights Management" is Orwellian. It sounds as if it is the opposite of what it actually means.
"Digital Restrictions Management" is a more accurate term.
So you say, but I disagree. It protects the *rights* of the authors (as defined by law) but also *restricts* the user... either definition is correct. My comment did not attempt to establish the "correctness" of either version of the acronym, just to point out that there are multiple viewpoints, and that a huge number of people on here are very hypocritical.
But then, I guess we all already knew that.