No, sir!
Apparently you have not read the DMCA very well! By the very DMCA itself, you are not allowed to know the law. Knowing the law is storing the law in your memory - a violation of the law itself. You can be imprisoned and/or fined up to $500,000.00 for storing such IP on your grey drive.
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
It's obvious that no one actually gives two shits about children, as evidenced by the fact that politicians always use "our children" as the motivation behind their ideology battles. Oh,
don't forget the highly tactical debate phrase, "...and our children's children." What about their children? And the children after that?
How many generations do we keep track of?
If you're on a debate team, just keep repeating the phrase, "...and our children's children." No one will know (or care) what the fuck you are talking about, but you will win!
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
Re:Intel inside? Doesn't make sense.
on
Salon on the XBox
·
· Score: 1
W.R.T. most modern processors, RISC and CISC don't really mean anything at all.
Hannibal at Ars Technica wrote a good article about it:
Thus the "RISC vs. CISC" debate really exists only in the minds of marketing departments and platform advocates whose purpose in creating and perpetuating this fictitious conflict is to promote their pet product by means of name-calling and sloganeering.
The corporate mindlessness displayed here is not captured by the fact that they think they can eliminate file sharing; it's that they actually believe they are losing revenue on something that can be copied limitlessly and perfectly without any cost at all.
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
It was Comanche...I loved that game. A couple years ago I ordered Comanche 2 for like $15. It's a fun game, but unfortunately they made it for 486 machines. It has some strange code for tracking how much fuel you have: when I play it on my pentium 233, I run out of gas in like 1 minute.
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
We don't want to move the censorware battle to a place where they keep getting more accurate and we keep pointing out the remaining flaws. We want to start discussing where it is appropriate to target censorware, if anywhere. For instance, I am totally against any kind of filtering in a library or on all ISPs (that is, I don't mind of ChristSoft wants to implement a filter for their members, but I don't want ALL ISPs to start doing it).
This is an excellent point and I'm surprised at how seldom people bring it up. I usually read scathing arguments about the inaccuracy of censorware, but what happens when it gets more accurate? It's still censorship. It's like telling them not to do it only on the basis that they can't do it completely.
While we're deciding what is art and what is porn, the politicians, family groups, and software companies will be moving on to censor both.
This is only because the assignment operator '=' in C returns a value: the value of the object assigned to after the assignment. So the C expression (i = 4) evaluates to the value 4. C has no notion of a 'boolean' value. A 'boolean' is just zero or nonzero in C, so it is not that C "allows" assignments to be booleans, it's that they are the same thing. An assignment is a perfectly valid condition in C. It's programmers' faults for botching this up, whether it's you or the guy whose code you're trying to fix.
You can say that C is unclear and hard to learn, but it is not to blame for this error, just like it's the user's fault for typing rm -rf/ as root in Unix.
I certainly don't think music should be free for all. But what Valenti seems to be suggesting is that if you produce something, the underlying intent should be financial gain. There is no law that you cannot produce free music and work some other job to support yourself. In fact, lots of artists do just that. That said, I am not in favor of totally free music. If artists want to make their living off of their music, I'm okay with it. And I will pay for it.
What bothers me is this notion that their is no reason aside from money to create anything artistic or of value. That idea is completely false, otherwise (monetarily) free software wouldn't exist.
Why does anything have to be done daily? If someone approached me and said, "Hey, look, I can't afford a painter but the benches in this public park need painting." I'd do it for free. That's just a contrived example, but people do things pro bono all the time and I don't see why artwork should be an exception.
I think this is a great post. I think that sharing also poses a threat in that no longer are we buying an album, only to realize too late that it has one good song and the rest is some crap that the producer came up with.
Another point is this: the lawsuit against Napster is not about recouping damages. There are no damages. The music industry profits are higher than ever (there's a/. post about this somewhere). No one loses money when you listen to songs you weren't going to buy in the first place. The lawsuit is about making a big fuss, screaming and yelling and hoping that it produces enough FUD in the minds of consumers that they begin to loathe new technology and shy away from it, thereby preserving the RIAA's (and MPAA's, for that matter) obsolete distribution model.
What I am not sure about is whether the RIAA has really slit its own throat. Remember, copied IP that no one was going to buy anyway isn't a loss in revenue. For the RIAA to be done in, people will have to abandon buying CDs altogether.
And mp3s come from someone, somewhere, ripping CDs. So I dunno. I still think that the RIAA is on a downward spiral, but it may take longer for the above reason. What will probably happen is that the RIAA will prosecute one or two people and really make a big show out of it, with hopes that everyone else gets scared.
That would be a huge mistake on the RIAA's part, because it would imply that digital formats are to blame rather than music traders. It doesn't address the notion that people are (gasp) sharing music without paying for it!
"...you cannot operate in an atmosphere where everything is free. If that happens, why would anyone bother to create?"
I dunno, Jack...Maybe because they're artists? Or because people like contributing to things society as a whole can enjoy? Maybe for recognition in one's field?
Most of the exploits I've seen have compile instructions, and I don't mean some comment at the top like "make sure IPV4 is defined when compiling" but the actual command line to compile. I think that pretty much indicates the skill level of the people downloading these exploits, but also the intentions of the author(s).
Actually, the 9 bits of security information is extremely secure and quite adequate. The majority of security holes come from users being sloppy and buffer overwrites.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.doanload.com
into the browser.
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
If you're on a debate team, just keep repeating the phrase, "...and our children's children." No one will know (or care) what the fuck you are talking about, but you will win!
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
Hannibal at Ars Technica wrote a good article about it:
The article is available here.
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
My mobo doesn't even have agp! :(
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
--
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
--
Yeah, millions of lusers are what make up IRC!
--
--
This is an excellent point and I'm surprised at how seldom people bring it up. I usually read scathing arguments about the inaccuracy of censorware, but what happens when it gets more accurate? It's still censorship. It's like telling them not to do it only on the basis that they can't do it completely.
While we're deciding what is art and what is porn, the politicians, family groups, and software companies will be moving on to censor both.
--
You can say that C is unclear and hard to learn, but it is not to blame for this error, just like it's the user's fault for typing rm -rf / as root in Unix.
--
--
What bothers me is this notion that their is no reason aside from money to create anything artistic or of value. That idea is completely false, otherwise (monetarily) free software wouldn't exist.
--
--
Another point is this: the lawsuit against Napster is not about recouping damages. There are no damages. The music industry profits are higher than ever (there's a /. post about this somewhere). No one loses money when you listen to songs you weren't going to buy in the first place. The lawsuit is about making a big fuss, screaming and yelling and hoping that it produces enough FUD in the minds of consumers that they begin to loathe new technology and shy away from it, thereby preserving the RIAA's (and MPAA's, for that matter) obsolete distribution model.
What I am not sure about is whether the RIAA has really slit its own throat. Remember, copied IP that no one was going to buy anyway isn't a loss in revenue. For the RIAA to be done in, people will have to abandon buying CDs altogether.
And mp3s come from someone, somewhere, ripping CDs. So I dunno. I still think that the RIAA is on a downward spiral, but it may take longer for the above reason. What will probably happen is that the RIAA will prosecute one or two people and really make a big show out of it, with hopes that everyone else gets scared.
--
--
I dunno, Jack...Maybe because they're artists? Or because people like contributing to things society as a whole can enjoy? Maybe for recognition in one's field?
Not everything has to have a price tag.
--
--
--
--