The video shows that the police covers up the cameras
I don't know what the legal position is but imho a search warrant should be directed at a specific purpose, presumably searching for evidence of a crime. It shouldn't permit police to interfere with whatever they feel like on the premises other than in pursuing their search. I can't imagine any legitimate reason for them interfering with the cameras in this way - it should be illegal unless clearly authorised by the warrant.
Fair enough, I just don't see any point in moving away from using the users' choice of fonts to not using the users' choice of fonts. Like anything it can be worked around. The whole design can be replaced e.g. the green some people don't like. As the purpose of this article seems to be to comment on the new design, I was commenting on an aspect of it that seems bad to me.
If that's your specific case, change your own default fonts to serif across the board. Definitely don't go through each website you visit and demand that they cater to your odd personal needs.
The fact that the new design ignores the users' choice of fonts is exactly what he's complaining about. It sounds as though you used to have a poor (for you) default font selected so very sensibly you changed it, and Slashdot correctly reflected that change. The new design seems to impose someone else's choice of font. It doesn't follow the users' choices.
To be fair, despite Zonk's bizarre link to it as "a disease that is so controversial that doctors refuse to treat you", the Popular Mechanics story actually says that the doctor they mostly speak to (Dr. Peter Lynch, professor emeritus of dermatology at the University of California) diagnoses the condition as delusional parasitosis for which he prescribes the antipsychotic drug risperidone, which he says works.
Nothing about anyone refusing to treat it because it's "so controversial".
The real question here is; what is Zonk suffering from, and why is he trying to inflict it upon the rest of us?
Maybe it's just me (is it?), but one thing that really bugs me about slashdot currently is the serif fonts.
It uses the default font set for the browser. At least, it does for me. Your browser probably comes with a serif font set as default and you've never changed it.
Please don't even take my words on this, research it (on the MS side) and send email to Microsoft asking for them to give over ideas on how to fully support all the technologies MS Word and future documents might use.
What would be the point in us emailing them? Microsoft has its own representatives on the committees responsible for this standard, at least with respect to the OSI. I'm sure they would be welcome to participate elsewhere too. If they want to contribute their suggestions then there's nothing stopping them. How would me emailing them help? This is silly.
I would think, after being successfully sued, that indicated "Yes, WE SUCK. Here is some money so you leave us alone!", in which case, Apple Corps couldn't rightfully sue Apple computers for this... again.
That's right. It's like if I punch you in the face and you sue me and win then afterwards I'm entitled to punch you,kick you, run you down in my car etc whenever I like and you can't do anything about it. It's obvious really.
As Jobs is still the largest stockholder of the company, how many changes will really take place?
Unless I've totally misread the story, Disney will now be the sole owner of Pixar. Jobs will now (not still) be the single largest shareholder in Disney. That doesn't mean that he necessarily has the power to change its entrenched culture. I doubt he has anything like enough of a shreholding to replace the existing management, or to plausibly theaten to.
I for one can't understand why the software industry is basically the ONLY ONE giving away the result of its work and talent.
It isn't. You just wrote an opinion and gave it away. Think of all those poor starving opinion writers for newspapers and magazines. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
So if I did my super swell math correctly 3.3 Million to 1 Billon is.33%
Lots of succesful companies have profit margins in the region of just a few percent of revenue. The ones that take your approach don't even have that. An saving equivalent to.33% of revenue can be a very significant increase to profit.
According to the study, the problem lies with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that companies disclose ownership of intellectual property to their shareholders.
It does go on to say:
The study indicates that dozens of companies are discovered each year to have violated the terms of GPL, and if they are public companies, they are violating Sarbanes-Oxley.
But that doesn't negate the first statement and the article never explains the connection between the two statements.
"From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. "
So what do you think outsourcing does then?
In the case of India, it aids the world's largest democracy.
Stealing energy from cars that have a green light seems like a bad idea.
Seems better than "stealing" it from everyone else. Someone is going to be "stolen" from in your terminology so why not the people getting the benefit?
Agreed. But the question is, is it our fault this time?
No it isn't. The important questions are whether something is happening that we would rather not have happen (whether that's the polar bear issue itself or other aspects of global warming) and whether we can do anything about it.
I really think you're missing the point here. The old setup of SWG was not a "sandbox-style adventure" for reasons of political correctness, but instead to favor strategy and precise action over frenetic action.
I don't see how he's missing the point. As you say, the original game wasn't designed that way specifically for disabled access and, as you presumably realise, the changes weren't made specifically to remove that access. Criticising the game changes is valid. Using some disabled rights angle as an excuse to bash the game providers is really offensive.
If you don't believe that they are allowed to change their game then say so. If you believe that they are then sometimes those changes are going to affect players that they don't even know about.
Asserting that this is somehow related to blind people's ability to play games(before or after patches) is the only absurd argument here.
You explicitly claimed that since games are different to fighter planes that they should be playable by anyone. That was a stupid comment and I can understand why you want to backdown from it now, just be honest that you typed without thinking - we all do it at times.
Of course your claim is directly related to whether blind people, or any other group, can play computer games. You explicitly claimed a theory that they should be able to.
At least in theory, everyone should be able to play SWG
Where do you get that theory from? There aren't many computer games that can be played by blind people. Should all the ones that can't be taken off the market? Should it be illegal to produce games that cater to the bulk of the population? Sorry but this is absurd.
I've got sympathy for the guy losing his favourite game, of course, but that doesn't mean the makers have done anything wrong in not ensuring that every existing player, no matter how extreme their circumstances, can't be locked out of it.
Suppose they put the price up, would that be wrong because it excludes people who could afford it before?
One is technically true, the other is certainly arguable.
The statement that the constitution is a piece of paper is undoubtedly false. It may be written on a piece of paper but that's not the same thing at all. Destroy the paper and the constitution still exists. It's an abstract, a set of rules setting out powers and responsibilities of governement, not a piece of paper.
In fairness, one data point does not a useful judgement make.
I think three data points suggest that FuturePower(R) has more of an interest in this than just having seen an unimpressive interview. It sounds more like a personal grudge.
From this I CAN infer that the guy lives in his own house with parking outside.
I live in my own house with parking outside but I've still seen a neighbour's wireless network appear on the list at times. Mine is encrypted, of course.
Who the hell wants to 'share' a movie with others of p2p networks so much that they would go war-driving?
You don't have to go 'war-driving' to use someone else's unsecured wireless. You just turn your computer on in your living room and check to see what networks are available. You can even do it without meaning to.
You cannot possibly be reading an IM and, at the same instant, _watching_ television, even if you're doing it on the same screen. Not Possible, Not even in principle.
I gather it can be achieved with split brain surgery, the two eyes being controlled by different hemispheres of the brain.
Slashdot Mirror
The video shows that the police covers up the cameras
I don't know what the legal position is but imho a search warrant should be directed at a specific purpose, presumably searching for evidence of a crime. It shouldn't permit police to interfere with whatever they feel like on the premises other than in pursuing their search. I can't imagine any legitimate reason for them interfering with the cameras in this way - it should be illegal unless clearly authorised by the warrant.
Fair enough, I just don't see any point in moving away from using the users' choice of fonts to not using the users' choice of fonts. Like anything it can be worked around. The whole design can be replaced e.g. the green some people don't like. As the purpose of this article seems to be to comment on the new design, I was commenting on an aspect of it that seems bad to me.
If that's your specific case, change your own default fonts to serif across the board. Definitely don't go through each website you visit and demand that they cater to your odd personal needs.
The fact that the new design ignores the users' choice of fonts is exactly what he's complaining about. It sounds as though you used to have a poor (for you) default font selected so very sensibly you changed it, and Slashdot correctly reflected that change. The new design seems to impose someone else's choice of font. It doesn't follow the users' choices.
And a link to Popular Mechanics!?!?
To be fair, despite Zonk's bizarre link to it as "a disease that is so controversial that doctors refuse to treat you", the Popular Mechanics story actually says that the doctor they mostly speak to (Dr. Peter Lynch, professor emeritus of dermatology at the University of California) diagnoses the condition as delusional parasitosis for which he prescribes the antipsychotic drug risperidone, which he says works.
Nothing about anyone refusing to treat it because it's "so controversial".
The real question here is; what is Zonk suffering from, and why is he trying to inflict it upon the rest of us?
If I broadcast a message
I'd tend to agree with respect to a broadcast message. However, a phone call from one person to another is about as narrowcast as anything gets.
Maybe it's just me (is it?), but one thing that really bugs me about slashdot currently is the serif fonts.
It uses the default font set for the browser. At least, it does for me. Your browser probably comes with a serif font set as default and you've never changed it.
Please don't even take my words on this, research it (on the MS side) and send email to Microsoft asking for them to give over ideas on how to fully support all the technologies MS Word and future documents might use.
What would be the point in us emailing them? Microsoft has its own representatives on the committees responsible for this standard, at least with respect to the OSI. I'm sure they would be welcome to participate elsewhere too. If they want to contribute their suggestions then there's nothing stopping them. How would me emailing them help? This is silly.
I would think, after being successfully sued, that indicated "Yes, WE SUCK. Here is some money so you leave us alone!", in which case, Apple Corps couldn't rightfully sue Apple computers for this... again.
That's right. It's like if I punch you in the face and you sue me and win then afterwards I'm entitled to punch you,kick you, run you down in my car etc whenever I like and you can't do anything about it. It's obvious really.
As Jobs is still the largest stockholder of the company, how many changes will really take place?
Unless I've totally misread the story, Disney will now be the sole owner of Pixar. Jobs will now (not still) be the single largest shareholder in Disney. That doesn't mean that he necessarily has the power to change its entrenched culture. I doubt he has anything like enough of a shreholding to replace the existing management, or to plausibly theaten to.
I for one can't understand why the software industry is basically the ONLY ONE giving away the result of its work and talent.
It isn't. You just wrote an opinion and gave it away. Think of all those poor starving opinion writers for newspapers and magazines. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
So if I did my super swell math correctly 3.3 Million to 1 Billon is .33%
.33% of revenue can be a very significant increase to profit.
Lots of succesful companies have profit margins in the region of just a few percent of revenue. The ones that take your approach don't even have that. An saving equivalent to
Yes there is. The article says:
It does go on to say:
But that doesn't negate the first statement and the article never explains the connection between the two statements.
"From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. "
So what do you think outsourcing does then?
In the case of India, it aids the world's largest democracy.
There are sure enough examples of crap utility patents
Typical links:
Method of swinging on a swing
Method of exercising a cat
You know, I wish there was more thought put into the eye... I would really like to se Infra Red, UV, and maybe even be able to see radiation.
I'd settle for decent vision without having to stick glass lenses in front.
Stealing energy from cars that have a green light seems like a bad idea.
Seems better than "stealing" it from everyone else. Someone is going to be "stolen" from in your terminology so why not the people getting the benefit?
Agreed. But the question is, is it our fault this time?
No it isn't. The important questions are whether something is happening that we would rather not have happen (whether that's the polar bear issue itself or other aspects of global warming) and whether we can do anything about it.
I really think you're missing the point here. The old setup of SWG was not a "sandbox-style adventure" for reasons of political correctness, but instead to favor strategy and precise action over frenetic action.
I don't see how he's missing the point. As you say, the original game wasn't designed that way specifically for disabled access and, as you presumably realise, the changes weren't made specifically to remove that access. Criticising the game changes is valid. Using some disabled rights angle as an excuse to bash the game providers is really offensive.
If you don't believe that they are allowed to change their game then say so. If you believe that they are then sometimes those changes are going to affect players that they don't even know about.
Asserting that this is somehow related to blind people's ability to play games(before or after patches) is the only absurd argument here.
You explicitly claimed that since games are different to fighter planes that they should be playable by anyone. That was a stupid comment and I can understand why you want to backdown from it now, just be honest that you typed without thinking - we all do it at times.
Of course your claim is directly related to whether blind people, or any other group, can play computer games. You explicitly claimed a theory that they should be able to.
At least in theory, everyone should be able to play SWG
Where do you get that theory from? There aren't many computer games that can be played by blind people. Should all the ones that can't be taken off the market? Should it be illegal to produce games that cater to the bulk of the population? Sorry but this is absurd.
I've got sympathy for the guy losing his favourite game, of course, but that doesn't mean the makers have done anything wrong in not ensuring that every existing player, no matter how extreme their circumstances, can't be locked out of it.
Suppose they put the price up, would that be wrong because it excludes people who could afford it before?
One is technically true, the other is certainly arguable.
The statement that the constitution is a piece of paper is undoubtedly false. It may be written on a piece of paper but that's not the same thing at all. Destroy the paper and the constitution still exists. It's an abstract, a set of rules setting out powers and responsibilities of governement, not a piece of paper.
In fairness, one data point does not a useful judgement make.
I think three data points suggest that FuturePower(R) has more of an interest in this than just having seen an unimpressive interview. It sounds more like a personal grudge.
Socially unsophisticated
OMG she used the word "geek".
Getting the developers to refuse to fix bugs
I don't know what he's got against her but it looks far from neutral.
From this I CAN infer that the guy lives in his own house with parking outside.
I live in my own house with parking outside but I've still seen a neighbour's wireless network appear on the list at times. Mine is encrypted, of course.
Who the hell wants to 'share' a movie with others of p2p networks so much that they would go war-driving?
You don't have to go 'war-driving' to use someone else's unsecured wireless. You just turn your computer on in your living room and check to see what networks are available. You can even do it without meaning to.
You cannot possibly be reading an IM and, at the same instant, _watching_ television, even if you're doing it on the same screen. Not Possible, Not even in principle.
I gather it can be achieved with split brain surgery, the two eyes being controlled by different hemispheres of the brain.