I actually find that they are more alike than different.
Creationist faith is really close to scientific extrapolation, and the creationist God is not much different than the scientific Natural Law.
*My* religion prods everyone to question the truth of anything, regardless of the source of information. I mean, even if I think something is from God, I still need to question it (not only the verity of source, but verity of content). I guess the only thing I have apart from the agnostic/atheist is that believe that some sources of information, and some methods of proof are from the divine.
I think that 'proof' is a bit of a loaded term. We can take the Cartesian route and say that the only 'proof' of something we have is that of our own existence - but even science takes a small amout of 'faith'.
'Meta-science philosophy' is probably just a fancy way of saying 'religion' for a lot of folks anyway.
The poor guys are just powerless - we really need to cut them a break, what with all the dirty third-party developers causing all their security problems... and now look how the hardware developers are practically forcing people to pirate software becuase of their high prices.
And with the justice system constantly nit-picking...
Inactive windows can launch dialog boxes so they appear to be displayed by a web site in another window.
When I tried this in Safari 1.2.3, the browser switched back to the test page as it gave me the phony dialog box. The Citibank page was only visible for a second or two before Safari switched back to the exploit test page.
Local bands and their prospective websites. There are other outlets - make your own music, for heaven's sake. This is a free market. Don't support those businesses you don't agree with. (This is also the reason I don't buy MS - I just don't agree with the business practices)
If you wan't to be a fan of a mainstream artist, then you *have* to abide by their rules. It's the law.
So, why are people rebelling and breaking their agreements? Because they feel that those agreements have been forced upon them and therefore feel they are not ethically bound by them (even if there is a small legal risk in doing so).
Their legal risk is huge - they are clearly breaking their agreements. The practical or probable reality of someone actually dragging them into court is probably much less so.
Point-in-case: don't agree to the Terms of Service if you have no plans of abiding by those rules. Buy something else.
But this whole I-want-Apple-to-do-it-my-way thing is really confusing to me.
You can cry if you want to share or download your tunes in a different way. You can complain about the evil DRM software Apple uses in its proprietary format. You can moan about lack of options and the iTMS/iPod lock-down.
I just don't understand why everyone clicks the "Yes" on the user agreement. If you want it to work a different way, don't support it.
Seems like all these 'benevolent' iTMS hacks, reverse engineers and DRM stripping apps are getting held up in some sort of martyr-like light.
Aren't these things a violation of the agreement they made when they decided to use the software and download songs?
As long as people believe they need the government to shield them (or, more likely, their kids) from sex, nudity, violence, and "bad" words, it isn't likely that we'll figure something out that works for both sides.
I live in the United States of America where everyone has a voice. The government is actually written from scratch to help everyone get heard - movement for the majority while protecting the minority. S'not perfect, but it works. (I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but its what the foundation of the government here really should be about - take it for what it's worth)
The other side believes (because it happens) that as long as the material is available they won't be able to keep their kids from being exposed to it.
Not necessarily. I lean more on the non-sexual non-violent side, but I don't want people hushed. I just want their 'art' tagged so I can avoid it.
Point-of-sale only happens once you've already been given a good idea of the wares - I don't think that will really work as well.
I very much agree on parental guidance - but that seems pretty obvious, no? I very much agree on working with your kids to prepare them for the crazy in life: if we shield them to well, they won't be able to handle the scary things in life when the come along.
Better lock them in their rooms and not let them out until they are 18.
While this seems like an exaggeration, its not.
While this may not be an exaggeration of what I would need to do to "keep absolutely everything that may be violent or sexual in nature out of your kids brain".......... I don't see why anyone would want their kids to live in a cave. You are exaggerating the issue.
There is no other way about it without tromping all over the rights of others.
Well - I'll leave it up to you to explain to every conservative parent in the country why they need to hole up their kids in caves in order not to tromp all over the rights of others....
The point of the post is to find out what middle ground we can find that works for everyone. It seems like people still really bicker violently about this - which indicates IMHO, that we haven't found it yet.
But the stick-em-in-caves thing may work. You might have something there... nobody's rights trampled on there....
<argument/.readerFlavor="liberal"> Why in the crap can't people control their children? Its not my freaking fault that you can't - and you don't have the right to keep my mature content away from me, no sir. If you can't handle being a parent, don't even bother to breed. </argument>
<argument./readerFlaver="conservative"> I'm all for keeping crap out of my children's hands. If you can find a way to help me battle the ton of crap that is launched at my kids brains every day, I'm all for it. I'm getting tired of the things they can show on mainstream media these days. Society is going to the dogs. </argument>...
This seems to be an ongoing issue across almost every media - can't we figure some out that works for both sides?
What if you made this thing on a little larger scale and dropped a convict in the middle? I guess you'd have to try to keep him from diving around, but you could have the device sense where the weight was and keep that object in the center of the path.
Might also be really nice for taking your dog on long trips - he could run around all he wanted...
Regulation absolutely does equal censorship. If government controls dictate that certain types of programming can't be on until after 9 P.M. that IS censorship.
No it doesn't. Browsing at +3 is regulation. Not allowing users to troll before 9:00 pm is censorship. Let me filter - you can show your sexy/violent stuff all day if you want, just allow me a sure way to block it all.
I honestly don't give a damn about your kids and am at a loss as to why you think it makes any sort of sense that the rest of the population should have to endure censorship of what they can view because you don't want your kids to think you are a mean Daddy/Mommy.
Um... that would be because I believe certain content is harmful. Sorry. If I want to keep your dogs out of my house, you're just gonna have to 'endure' my closed-minded 'regulation.' They may hurt you, but I'm afraid they're gonna knock my kids around. Look: Fair's fair. If you want your graphic content, I want a way to keep it out.
I find abhorrent that people think it is okay to use the force of the government to get around being 'control freaks' with their children....
The kind of control freak I'm speaking of is the parent who has to be omnipresent for all media consumption. If you read my first post, what I'm after here is a safe way to *regulate* obscene content. Broadcast it all day if you want, just rate it. Flag it. Something.
Parents need to take responsibility for themselves and their damned kids. Don't want your kids to see violence or sex on TV? Lock out all channels but PBS and Discovery (although, be careful, god forbid they learn about science of sex through the Discovery channel)... Whatever the case, I, an adult without kids, shouldn't have to suffer because you are manically trying to protect your kids from depictions of sex and violence, yet are too lazy to put in the effort to shield your kids from the fact that violence exists and most adults not only have sex, but have it often.
If you want to shove puritan values down your kids throats yet are too lazy to actually put in the effort to do it, do everyone a favor and don't breed.
Maybe all this regulation talk has really caused you to suffer as you say. I suppose all the broad generalizations about anti-sex sentiment, puritan brainwashing, and emotive argument are a result of a mind depraved of graphic sexual and violent content.
Restructuring how you deal with violence on TV has nothing to do with censoring it. The fact that the government is looking into helping me control what comes into my home and affects my children is great in my book.
Why does everyone throw the 'you-are-all-for-censorship' flag? Saying that I'm not tolerant or supressing free-speech is a bit hypocritical: I would ask you to be tolerant of my desire to shield my children (and myself) from harmful images and behavior portrayed on public TV.
Accusing me that I can't control my children (just turn off the TV or change the channel) doesn't especially work either. I fully agree that parents have prime responsibility for their chidren. But I don't want to have to be a control freak to protect my children. Besides: allowing me to filter things coming into my home protects me (and them) from accidentally coming across things I don't want to see.
Let's not skirt this issue either: The fact that people scoff at the US's sex/guns ratio is beside the point as well. I assume that it is the general consensus of the population of the world that viewing graphic sexual or violent content isn't beneficial, and if anything, harmful. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. Mix it however you want. Or we could say its some sort of election year tactic by the conservatives..... blah. Let's talk about the issue.
I thought IE on the Mac was dead... judging by their release schedule, IE on the PC has been dead for years. Any other software company that waited *years* to release their next version of internet software (or an operating system, no less) would be dead in the water.
What really makes me mad is they drove other browsers into the ground during the war, only to sit on their haunches and enjoy the elimination of their competition. Thank goodness for Mozilla, or we'd all be in real trouble.
Thanks to 1UP/Ogamo for its feature discussing the early importance of the Apple Macintosh as a videogaming platform.
Whatever its contribution in the past, Apple is a gaming platform no more. As a Mac user and a semi-avid gamer, I really miss one aspect of my old PC - the über availability of games.
Yes... How many BMW owners don't opt for the CD Changer?
That would be the ones who opt for a lot more songs than the CD changer can offer.
I'm not familiar with the CD changer setup, but the average CD changer is what, 5 CDs?
5 CD's = 3.5 GB, less info than what you can store the iPod mini.
Personally, I'd go for the "Super CD Changer" that I can stick in my pocket as I lock the doors....
--J
Re:Just for the sake of something new?
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
CSS is more than just prettying things up:
1) It separates presentation from business logic and document structure 2) It allows your non l337 graphic designer friend to update your site without screwing things up 3) It allows you to present your content a million and a half ways without having to write it up a million and a half ways. 4) Centralizing your presentational information makes facelifts exponentially quicker than changing every freaking td bgcolor in every cell of every page.
Besides, cutting the lard from your HTML gives your document a bit of a speed boost.
Isn't interesting that the source for many projects is wide open... and we don't have people running around with their heads cut off like the end of the world is coming.
So - which is it? Is closed-source or open-source more secure?
It seems like (to me) that consoles have really drifted toward a PC game like setup to me: networked games, mice, etc. The XBox itself is really PC-like.
If one kicks the bucket - I bet it will be because it has turned into the other.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually find that they are more alike than different.
Creationist faith is really close to scientific extrapolation, and the creationist God is not much different than the scientific Natural Law.
*My* religion prods everyone to question the truth of anything, regardless of the source of information. I mean, even if I think something is from God, I still need to question it (not only the verity of source, but verity of content). I guess the only thing I have apart from the agnostic/atheist is that believe that some sources of information, and some methods of proof are from the divine.
I think that 'proof' is a bit of a loaded term. We can take the Cartesian route and say that the only 'proof' of something we have is that of our own existence - but even science takes a small amout of 'faith'.
'Meta-science philosophy' is probably just a fancy way of saying 'religion' for a lot of folks anyway.
Just some thoughts.
The poor guys are just powerless - we really need to cut them a break, what with all the dirty third-party developers causing all their security problems ... and now look how the hardware developers are practically forcing people to pirate software becuase of their high prices.
;o)
And with the justice system constantly nit-picking...
(violins playing in the background)
Inactive windows can launch dialog boxes so they appear to be displayed by a web site in another window.
When I tried this in Safari 1.2.3, the browser switched back to the test page as it gave me the phony dialog box. The Citibank page was only visible for a second or two before Safari switched back to the exploit test page.
Doesn't seem to be a problem here... ?
Yeah - I think it's a server-side problem personally. The dialog box I get is "No response for 60 seconds...." :o)
Where are you going to get music?
Local bands and their prospective websites. There are other outlets - make your own music, for heaven's sake. This is a free market. Don't support those businesses you don't agree with. (This is also the reason I don't buy MS - I just don't agree with the business practices)
If you wan't to be a fan of a mainstream artist, then you *have* to abide by their rules. It's the law.
So, why are people rebelling and breaking their agreements? Because they feel that those agreements have been forced upon them and therefore feel they are not ethically bound by them (even if there is a small legal risk in doing so).
Their legal risk is huge - they are clearly breaking their agreements. The practical or probable reality of someone actually dragging them into court is probably much less so.
Point-in-case: don't agree to the Terms of Service if you have no plans of abiding by those rules. Buy something else.
But this whole I-want-Apple-to-do-it-my-way thing is really confusing to me.
You can cry if you want to share or download your tunes in a different way. You can complain about the evil DRM software Apple uses in its proprietary format. You can moan about lack of options and the iTMS/iPod lock-down.
I just don't understand why everyone clicks the "Yes" on the user agreement. If you want it to work a different way, don't support it.
Seems like all these 'benevolent' iTMS hacks, reverse engineers and DRM stripping apps are getting held up in some sort of martyr-like light.
Aren't these things a violation of the agreement they made when they decided to use the software and download songs?
??
As long as people believe they need the government to shield them (or, more likely, their kids) from sex, nudity, violence, and "bad" words, it isn't likely that we'll figure something out that works for both sides.
I live in the United States of America where everyone has a voice. The government is actually written from scratch to help everyone get heard - movement for the majority while protecting the minority. S'not perfect, but it works. (I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but its what the foundation of the government here really should be about - take it for what it's worth)
The other side believes (because it happens) that as long as the material is available they won't be able to keep their kids from being exposed to it.
Not necessarily. I lean more on the non-sexual non-violent side, but I don't want people hushed. I just want their 'art' tagged so I can avoid it.
Point-of-sale only happens once you've already been given a good idea of the wares - I don't think that will really work as well.
I very much agree on parental guidance - but that seems pretty obvious, no? I very much agree on working with your kids to prepare them for the crazy in life: if we shield them to well, they won't be able to handle the scary things in life when the come along.
Better lock them in their rooms and not let them out until they are 18.
..... ... .. I don't see why anyone would want their kids to live in a cave. You are exaggerating the issue.
While this seems like an exaggeration, its not.
While this may not be an exaggeration of what I would need to do to "keep absolutely everything that may be violent or sexual in nature out of your kids brain"
There is no other way about it without tromping all over the rights of others.
Well - I'll leave it up to you to explain to every conservative parent in the country why they need to hole up their kids in caves in order not to tromp all over the rights of others....
The point of the post is to find out what middle ground we can find that works for everyone. It seems like people still really bicker violently about this - which indicates IMHO, that we haven't found it yet.
But the stick-em-in-caves thing may work. You might have something there... nobody's rights trampled on there....
<argument
Why in the crap can't people control their children? Its not my freaking fault that you can't - and you don't have the right to keep my mature content away from me, no sir. If you can't handle being a parent, don't even bother to breed.
</argument>
<argument
I'm all for keeping crap out of my children's hands. If you can find a way to help me battle the ton of crap that is launched at my kids brains every day, I'm all for it. I'm getting tired of the things they can show on mainstream media these days. Society is going to the dogs.
</argument>
This seems to be an ongoing issue across almost every media - can't we figure some out that works for both sides?
</post>
Doom 3 ... to Wolfenstein
Return
Quake 4
Let's see something new. They gave birth to a genre before, let's see if they can do it again.
We're ready for it.
What if you made this thing on a little larger scale and dropped a convict in the middle? I guess you'd have to try to keep him from diving around, but you could have the device sense where the weight was and keep that object in the center of the path.
Might also be really nice for taking your dog on long trips - he could run around all he wanted...
Regulation absolutely does equal censorship. If government controls dictate that certain types of programming can't be on until after 9 P.M. that IS censorship.
...
... Whatever the case, I, an adult without kids, shouldn't have to suffer because you are manically trying to protect your kids from depictions of sex and violence, yet are too lazy to put in the effort to shield your kids from the fact that violence exists and most adults not only have sex, but have it often.
;o)
No it doesn't. Browsing at +3 is regulation. Not allowing users to troll before 9:00 pm is censorship. Let me filter - you can show your sexy/violent stuff all day if you want, just allow me a sure way to block it all.
I honestly don't give a damn about your kids and am at a loss as to why you think it makes any sort of sense that the rest of the population should have to endure censorship of what they can view because you don't want your kids to think you are a mean Daddy/Mommy.
Um... that would be because I believe certain content is harmful. Sorry. If I want to keep your dogs out of my house, you're just gonna have to 'endure' my closed-minded 'regulation.' They may hurt you, but I'm afraid they're gonna knock my kids around. Look: Fair's fair. If you want your graphic content, I want a way to keep it out.
I find abhorrent that people think it is okay to use the force of the government to get around being 'control freaks' with their children.
The kind of control freak I'm speaking of is the parent who has to be omnipresent for all media consumption. If you read my first post, what I'm after here is a safe way to *regulate* obscene content. Broadcast it all day if you want, just rate it. Flag it. Something.
Parents need to take responsibility for themselves and their damned kids. Don't want your kids to see violence or sex on TV? Lock out all channels but PBS and Discovery (although, be careful, god forbid they learn about science of sex through the Discovery channel)
If you want to shove puritan values down your kids throats yet are too lazy to actually put in the effort to do it, do everyone a favor and don't breed.
Maybe all this regulation talk has really caused you to suffer as you say. I suppose all the broad generalizations about anti-sex sentiment, puritan brainwashing, and emotive argument are a result of a mind depraved of graphic sexual and violent content.
Sorry.
--J
Restructuring how you deal with violence on TV has nothing to do with censoring it. The fact that the government is looking into helping me control what comes into my home and affects my children is great in my book.
Why does everyone throw the 'you-are-all-for-censorship' flag? Saying that I'm not tolerant or supressing free-speech is a bit hypocritical: I would ask you to be tolerant of my desire to shield my children (and myself) from harmful images and behavior portrayed on public TV.
Accusing me that I can't control my children (just turn off the TV or change the channel) doesn't especially work either. I fully agree that parents have prime responsibility for their chidren. But I don't want to have to be a control freak to protect my children. Besides: allowing me to filter things coming into my home protects me (and them) from accidentally coming across things I don't want to see.
Let's not skirt this issue either: The fact that people scoff at the US's sex/guns ratio is beside the point as well. I assume that it is the general consensus of the population of the world that viewing graphic sexual or violent content isn't beneficial, and if anything, harmful. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. Mix it however you want. Or we could say its some sort of election year tactic by the conservatives..... blah. Let's talk about the issue.
--J
What the crap have they been doing for the last THREE years? Playing Halo?
Check out some of these release dates:
6.0 --> 31-Dec-2001
6.0 SP1 --> 28-Aug-2002
I thought IE on the Mac was dead... judging by their release schedule, IE on the PC has been dead for years. Any other software company that waited *years* to release their next version of internet software (or an operating system, no less) would be dead in the water.
What really makes me mad is they drove other browsers into the ground during the war, only to sit on their haunches and enjoy the elimination of their competition. Thank goodness for Mozilla, or we'd all be in real trouble.
Get to work MS.
--J
I would suspect that these folks could *easily* develop a plugin adaptor for MSIE.
..Can't be that hard... ;o)
Geez, everyone else seems to be able to!
--J
Thanks to 1UP/Ogamo for its feature discussing the early importance of the Apple Macintosh as a videogaming platform.
Whatever its contribution in the past, Apple is a gaming platform no more. As a Mac user and a semi-avid gamer, I really miss one aspect of my old PC - the über availability of games.
Anyone seen this parody? It's right on the money.
"The PC is so... so confusing! You go the store and there are like.... racks and racks of games. But on the Mac, there are just six!"
--J
My organization is willing to fund some of their next projects if they do so. *Lets keep this a little quiet, tho, shall we?*
;o)
Something on the order of $200,000-$985,000 sound fine?
Oh - and anyone who wants to start any absurd legal battles with my competitors, my people need to talk to your people.
Put 'em to work on StarCraft II!
Maybe they wanted to focus all their RTS grey matter on the Warcraft games, but dang, SC was a great game.
Pretty Please?
Yes... How many BMW owners don't opt for the CD Changer?
That would be the ones who opt for a lot more songs than the CD changer can offer.
I'm not familiar with the CD changer setup, but the average CD changer is what, 5 CDs?
5 CD's = 3.5 GB, less info than what you can store the iPod mini.
Personally, I'd go for the "Super CD Changer" that I can stick in my pocket as I lock the doors....
--J
CSS is more than just prettying things up:
1) It separates presentation from business logic and document structure
2) It allows your non l337 graphic designer friend to update your site without screwing things up
3) It allows you to present your content a million and a half ways without having to write it up a million and a half ways.
4) Centralizing your presentational information makes facelifts exponentially quicker than changing every freaking td bgcolor in every cell of every page.
Besides, cutting the lard from your HTML gives your document a bit of a speed boost.
Isn't interesting that the source for many projects is wide open ... and we don't have people running around with their heads cut off like the end of the world is coming.
So - which is it? Is closed-source or open-source more secure?
Looks like now we'll have the chance to find out!
America's Army is goodun... Its good quality, and you can't beat free.
I've also found that there are some really good emulators for the mac, SNES9X being a favorite. There are more.
If you're a MUDder, you can get to those with just about anything. I use Cantrip, but it doesn't seem there are as many great Mac MUD clients...
Best of luck: I'm interested to see what others have to say... Its been really slim pickins....
P.S. - I also heard there may be another option available soon.
The finder takes up as much space as you want -- you can put icons in and out of it...
And if you like the older, more compact version, you can click the button at the top right of the window...
Console gaming turns into PC gaming.
It seems like (to me) that consoles have really drifted toward a PC game like setup to me: networked games, mice, etc. The XBox itself is really PC-like.
If one kicks the bucket - I bet it will be because it has turned into the other.
That all the virii/exploits will be ready and waiting for all of MS world in 2005.
Or maybe we'll have pre-release virus definitions ready by then...