"DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to."
I'm not sure I agree with this point of view. It seems to me that it's not a right to control material and copyright confers, but the right to legal protection from infringement on that material. If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?
That said, I don't really agree with that approach, I'm just not a fan of telling a creator what they can do with their creation.
Another example of politicians grandstanding on an issue in a way that makes them look good (to some), while avoiding the responsibility of actually *doing* anything. Are any of these same members of Congress actually working to revoke China's "Normal Trade Relations" (formerly known as Most Favored Nation) status? If not, they're just blowing hot air without expecting to have any real effect.
A camera, a cell-phone, a GPS unit, an air-quality sensor package, a battery to power the aforementioned gizmos and a backpack. Are these birds actually going to be able to fly once all this junk has been strapped to them?
Yep, it's all part of the big liberal conspiracy to be mean to the government. I can see it now. FBI agents weeping openly because that awful librarian wouldn't let them do their job. The fact that they backed down implies that they had no right to take the machines, and that they did in fact have time to secure a warrant, after working with the cooperation of the library staff.
I find it fascinating that somehow expecting and demanding that the government act within the boundaries of law is now somehow a "liberal" cause. I always thought it was just part of being an American.
And by the way, just because the library receives public funds, that does not mean that the government has full and unconditional access to take whatever they like from it. Also, if we're talking about the Newton Free Library (I don't know if there's another one in town or not), it would appear they run, either in part or in whole, on donated funds and money raised by the library itself, which makes the taxpayer argument a bit less compelling.
First the [possibly] illegal warrentless wiretaps authorized by the president, now the FBI attempting to seize computers without a warrant....is it a coincidence that these things are happening so close together, or has the example set at the top started creeping downhill? This is the kind of slippery slope I worry about, the idea that because it's been done at higher levels, law enforcement feels less inclined to play by the rules because "everybody's doing it". This is a problem not only for the people whose rights are being violated, but also for otherwise solid criminal cases that will be thrown out because of sloppiness.
I'm guessing the differences in the target markets plays a big part in why browsers seem to stay unchanged for long periods compared to games. Gamers want to see something new and impressive whenever possible, so the game developers may place a much higher premium on novelty and innovation than browser developers (at least superficially). Casual (or even serious) web users would probably not be as receptive to big UI changes to their browser of choice. As for smaller additions of new features, I don't know that the average user would even notice them. For example, I've gotten many people to switch from IE to FireFox, but quite a few of them tend to still use it the way they used IE, even when things like tabbed browsing is pointed out. If this is true, it makes sense that MS wouldn't throw a ton of resources at pushing out new updates until they feel they really have to.
Well this is obviously part of their evil plan to, er, um.....wait.....If Google was put in this position they'd do a way better, oh, no, not that either.....dammit, what should the official Slashdot we-hate-Microsoft position be here? Damned inconsiderate of them to do something not-obviously-evil and leave us high and dry like this.
But the cause of being overweight is OBVIOUS!
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Okay, so there are lots and lots of comments here that boil down to "put the cheeseburger down!", but in a stunning reversal, I actually RTFA. True, people should try to eat well, and on the whole I agree that most people should spend a little more time walking (or biking, or jogging, or whatever) and a little less time in front of the television. That being said, the article raises some interesting possibilities. If viral activity could be a cause of weight-gain, I'd rather know about it than simply insist that the guy who's oozing out of the sides of his seat down the aisle from me has no self-control.
There was a time when illness was "obviously" the result of evil spirits playing havoc on people who were not devout enough. I'll bet at some point there were people standing around the village square commenting on how "if that fool had just spent a little more time praying than [insert sinful activity here], he obviously wouldn't be lying on the ground hacking up a lung and burning up from fever". Just because this line of research goes against what we believe to be common-knowledge isn't really a reason to jump all over it, we can be wrong.
So, no, it's clearly not an excuse to give up eating well or exercising, but I'm not going to just say there's nothing to this until there's been a bit more study.
No, not unchallenged. No single shareholder could challenge him on their own, but he still would have to contend with the fact that the other 95% of shareholders may or may not agree with him. I'm not suggesting it's not significant, but it's a long way from absolute. IIRC, when Eisner was fighting for his position on the board, around 45% of shareholders where aligned against him (instigated by Roy Disney among others).
From reading some of the comments on this story you'd think the headline read "Steve Jobs Buys Disney Outright Using Personal Check". Granted having %5 of Disney is nothing to sneeze at, but he's hardly becoming the unchallenged dominant force in the company.....
Talking about machine intelligence is tricky in that we generally only consider *human* intellegence (which makes sense considering that's what we are). In John Varley's "Steel Beach", he suggested The Invaders (a mysterious species of aliens) might not consider humans an intelligent species, but looked at us as just another engineering species like bees, meaning intelligence is really dependant on your point of view. What we're really talking about when most people say Artificial Intelligence is actually more an issue of Artificial Humanity.
" Our promise to our customers is to fix it and it won't happen again. If it happens again, we fix it without charging them. How is that untrustworthy?"
I wouldn't say it's untrustworthy, but, if you fix their security, and it happens again, do you also offer to pay for the $insert_amount_lost that they've suffered in damages? Now that would be an impressive guarantee.
Security contractors and law-enforcement both have their place, one to help secure a system, and one to catch/deter threats to that system using the force of law. Neither one is perfect, but one without the other is less effective in the long run, not more.
While I don't relish the idea of getting stuck next to a compulsively loud-talking cell-junkie, considering some of the weirdness I've seen down there I'm not sure I'd notice all that much....kind of like worrying about a broken toe while you're suffering from a sucking chest-wound. One memorable ride had me sitting a few feet from a guy who seemed to be having a shouting match with JFK....I probably don't need to add that JFK wasn't actually there (but I'll add it anyway:p).
Or maybe we should get rid of subways, so there's nothing to blow up. Or maybe get rid of cities so there are no good targets. Sure they could use a cell-phone as a detonator, but they could also use an egg timer. They don't blow themselves up because they have no way to delay a detonation, they do it to ensure nobody finds the bomb prematurely, and because they are committed to the idea of martyrdom.
I kind of like the way PeanutPress (or Palm Digital, or whatever they're calling themselves now) handles it. The key used to unlock an e-book is the credit card number used to purchase it. I can put copies on my PDAs, laptop, wherever I'm comfortable entering my credit-card number, so I wouldn't be tempted to post that around for anonymous sharing. So, upside, I'm not locked into reading my e-book on particular machine, downside, I don't think there's a way to copy excerpts out for other use (like a review or research). It's a long way from a perfect solution, but for most of the books I've downloaded from them it's not particularly onerous.
As far as being strong security goes, yeah, it's easily circumvented, but as long as the price is reasonable (which it generally seems to be), I think/hope most people would be willing to pay for a work they enjoy....
I'm starting to see the "Oooo, Clinton backed this too!" comments and I just don't see why it matters. This was a bad law when Clinton liked it, and it's still a bad law with Bush backing it. The only reason to link it to Bush more visibly now is because he actually *is* the President. Complaining to/about Clinton certainly isn't going to change it.
Yep, matter of fact I got it. What you don't seem to be getting is I understand your point and I'm disagreeing. That happens around here sometimes. I'll go slow and use short words.....I believe you are wrong.
Oh, and it's Sylvan, not Sylvarn. You may want to check into it for yourself. If you're going to fall back to pointless insults you may want to actually get it right.
I read quite well, you however seem to be having comprehension problems....How old the practice is, and it's far older than "biblical times" btw, is irrelevant. In *this* country, a leader does not have the right to step outside the law because he finds those pesky rights things inconvienient. In your "biblical times" reference, there were kings or similar rulers that could command that sort of action because their power was absolute or nearly so. The President does not have absolute power, far from it. The ACLU is involved because they believe the government has overstepped it's authority. If we were just going to go on how long something's been going on, slavery, public execution and human sacrafice would be okay. They aren't, and this isn't either if the ACLU's position is correct.
As far as it being a left/right issue, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't really care who's abusing their position of authority, they should be held accountable regardless of their choice of political party.
The same way we survived without penicillin, air travel and XBOX 360s. Just because it hasn't been around since we first dropped out of the trees doesn't mean it's sinister.
Slashdot Mirror
"DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to."
I'm not sure I agree with this point of view. It seems to me that it's not a right to control material and copyright confers, but the right to legal protection from infringement on that material. If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?
That said, I don't really agree with that approach, I'm just not a fan of telling a creator what they can do with their creation.
"The complaints are being reviewed by the Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency."
Experts at weeding out and disposing of integrity and efficiency wherever they're found......
Another example of politicians grandstanding on an issue in a way that makes them look good (to some), while avoiding the responsibility of actually *doing* anything. Are any of these same members of Congress actually working to revoke China's "Normal Trade Relations" (formerly known as Most Favored Nation) status? If not, they're just blowing hot air without expecting to have any real effect.
A camera, a cell-phone, a GPS unit, an air-quality sensor package, a battery to power the aforementioned gizmos and a backpack. Are these birds actually going to be able to fly once all this junk has been strapped to them?
Yep, it's all part of the big liberal conspiracy to be mean to the government. I can see it now. FBI agents weeping openly because that awful librarian wouldn't let them do their job. The fact that they backed down implies that they had no right to take the machines, and that they did in fact have time to secure a warrant, after working with the cooperation of the library staff.
I find it fascinating that somehow expecting and demanding that the government act within the boundaries of law is now somehow a "liberal" cause. I always thought it was just part of being an American.
And by the way, just because the library receives public funds, that does not mean that the government has full and unconditional access to take whatever they like from it. Also, if we're talking about the Newton Free Library (I don't know if there's another one in town or not), it would appear they run, either in part or in whole, on donated funds and money raised by the library itself, which makes the taxpayer argument a bit less compelling.
First the [possibly] illegal warrentless wiretaps authorized by the president, now the FBI attempting to seize computers without a warrant....is it a coincidence that these things are happening so close together, or has the example set at the top started creeping downhill? This is the kind of slippery slope I worry about, the idea that because it's been done at higher levels, law enforcement feels less inclined to play by the rules because "everybody's doing it". This is a problem not only for the people whose rights are being violated, but also for otherwise solid criminal cases that will be thrown out because of sloppiness.
Its not that the numbers are too big, its that the EULA he staples to his tax forms require it be processed by 100% MS software.
I'm guessing the differences in the target markets plays a big part in why browsers seem to stay unchanged for long periods compared to games. Gamers want to see something new and impressive whenever possible, so the game developers may place a much higher premium on novelty and innovation than browser developers (at least superficially). Casual (or even serious) web users would probably not be as receptive to big UI changes to their browser of choice. As for smaller additions of new features, I don't know that the average user would even notice them. For example, I've gotten many people to switch from IE to FireFox, but quite a few of them tend to still use it the way they used IE, even when things like tabbed browsing is pointed out. If this is true, it makes sense that MS wouldn't throw a ton of resources at pushing out new updates until they feel they really have to.
Just my 2 cents and a few random thoughts...
Well this is obviously part of their evil plan to, er, um.....wait.....If Google was put in this position they'd do a way better, oh, no, not that either.....dammit, what should the official Slashdot we-hate-Microsoft position be here? Damned inconsiderate of them to do something not-obviously-evil and leave us high and dry like this.
funny, I always thought the most hated group on Slashdot was Anonymous Cowards.
"although the shared bookmarks thing creates unholy lust in my heart"
dear god do you ever need to get out more....
So does this mean that the big two-for-one sale at http://www.starregistry.com/ will have to be rethought?
Okay, so there are lots and lots of comments here that boil down to "put the cheeseburger down!", but in a stunning reversal, I actually RTFA. True, people should try to eat well, and on the whole I agree that most people should spend a little more time walking (or biking, or jogging, or whatever) and a little less time in front of the television. That being said, the article raises some interesting possibilities. If viral activity could be a cause of weight-gain, I'd rather know about it than simply insist that the guy who's oozing out of the sides of his seat down the aisle from me has no self-control.
There was a time when illness was "obviously" the result of evil spirits playing havoc on people who were not devout enough. I'll bet at some point there were people standing around the village square commenting on how "if that fool had just spent a little more time praying than [insert sinful activity here], he obviously wouldn't be lying on the ground hacking up a lung and burning up from fever". Just because this line of research goes against what we believe to be common-knowledge isn't really a reason to jump all over it, we can be wrong.
So, no, it's clearly not an excuse to give up eating well or exercising, but I'm not going to just say there's nothing to this until there's been a bit more study.
No, not unchallenged. No single shareholder could challenge him on their own, but he still would have to contend with the fact that the other 95% of shareholders may or may not agree with him. I'm not suggesting it's not significant, but it's a long way from absolute. IIRC, when Eisner was fighting for his position on the board, around 45% of shareholders where aligned against him (instigated by Roy Disney among others).
From reading some of the comments on this story you'd think the headline read "Steve Jobs Buys Disney Outright Using Personal Check". Granted having %5 of Disney is nothing to sneeze at, but he's hardly becoming the unchallenged dominant force in the company.....
Talking about machine intelligence is tricky in that we generally only consider *human* intellegence (which makes sense considering that's what we are). In John Varley's "Steel Beach", he suggested The Invaders (a mysterious species of aliens) might not consider humans an intelligent species, but looked at us as just another engineering species like bees, meaning intelligence is really dependant on your point of view. What we're really talking about when most people say Artificial Intelligence is actually more an issue of Artificial Humanity.
" Our promise to our customers is to fix it and it won't happen again.
If it happens again, we fix it without charging them. How is that untrustworthy?"
I wouldn't say it's untrustworthy, but, if you fix their security, and it happens again, do you also offer to pay for the $insert_amount_lost that they've suffered in damages? Now that would be an impressive guarantee.
Security contractors and law-enforcement both have their place, one to help secure a system, and one to catch/deter threats to that system using the force of law. Neither one is perfect, but one without the other is less effective in the long run, not more.
While I don't relish the idea of getting stuck next to a compulsively loud-talking cell-junkie, considering some of the weirdness I've seen down there I'm not sure I'd notice all that much....kind of like worrying about a broken toe while you're suffering from a sucking chest-wound. One memorable ride had me sitting a few feet from a guy who seemed to be having a shouting match with JFK....I probably don't need to add that JFK wasn't actually there (but I'll add it anyway :p).
Or maybe we should get rid of subways, so there's nothing to blow up. Or maybe get rid of cities so there are no good targets. Sure they could use a cell-phone as a detonator, but they could also use an egg timer. They don't blow themselves up because they have no way to delay a detonation, they do it to ensure nobody finds the bomb prematurely, and because they are committed to the idea of martyrdom.
The Spice Girls were very popular for a while too.....plenty of cases where popular != good
(this is not a direct jab at Spanish Telenovelas, never seen one personally)
I kind of like the way PeanutPress (or Palm Digital, or whatever they're calling themselves now) handles it. The key used to unlock an e-book is the credit card number used to purchase it. I can put copies on my PDAs, laptop, wherever I'm comfortable entering my credit-card number, so I wouldn't be tempted to post that around for anonymous sharing. So, upside, I'm not locked into reading my e-book on particular machine, downside, I don't think there's a way to copy excerpts out for other use (like a review or research). It's a long way from a perfect solution, but for most of the books I've downloaded from them it's not particularly onerous.
As far as being strong security goes, yeah, it's easily circumvented, but as long as the price is reasonable (which it generally seems to be), I think/hope most people would be willing to pay for a work they enjoy....
I'm starting to see the "Oooo, Clinton backed this too!" comments and I just don't see why it matters. This was a bad law when Clinton liked it, and it's still a bad law with Bush backing it. The only reason to link it to Bush more visibly now is because he actually *is* the President. Complaining to/about Clinton certainly isn't going to change it.
Yep, matter of fact I got it. What you don't seem to be getting is I understand your point and I'm disagreeing. That happens around here sometimes. I'll go slow and use short words.....I believe you are wrong.
Oh, and it's Sylvan, not Sylvarn. You may want to check into it for yourself. If you're going to fall back to pointless insults you may want to actually get it right.
I read quite well, you however seem to be having comprehension problems....How old the practice is, and it's far older than "biblical times" btw, is irrelevant. In *this* country, a leader does not have the right to step outside the law because he finds those pesky rights things inconvienient. In your "biblical times" reference, there were kings or similar rulers that could command that sort of action because their power was absolute or nearly so. The President does not have absolute power, far from it. The ACLU is involved because they believe the government has overstepped it's authority. If we were just going to go on how long something's been going on, slavery, public execution and human sacrafice would be okay. They aren't, and this isn't either if the ACLU's position is correct.
As far as it being a left/right issue, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't really care who's abusing their position of authority, they should be held accountable regardless of their choice of political party.
The same way we survived without penicillin, air travel and XBOX 360s. Just because it hasn't been around since we first dropped out of the trees doesn't mean it's sinister.