Those reputable companies might be a bit more careful in future to ensure that they aren't selling to spammers
Perhaps if we know a thief has an account at a certain bank, we should get together and rob that bank. That way, the bank will be more careful in the future, monitoring accounts for large irregular transactions and offshore transfers and such, so they don't do business with thieves.
Or maybe not.
I know we all feel the same anger towards spammers, and the desire to take matters into our own hands when lawmakers and technology move too slowly for us, but there are some Very Good Reasons vigilante justice is discouraged. Innocent bystanders are a big one.
Making spam illegal and regulating ISPs to provide a minimum standard of diligence is something we should do as a society, through all those people we don't like but elect anyway. Or maybe since it will just go offshore, hopefully the nice techie overlords will fix it. Either way, DDoSing without due process isn't the answer.
You're suggesting an outer skin coated in the main ingredient for rocket fuel isn't sufficient to explain a raging fireball?
I haven't seen a video of the Hindenburg disaster in quite a while, but I don't recall an actual earth shaking* explosion. I recall a big blimp-sized airborn bonfire. I would imagine (IANAChemsit) if the hydrogen had mixed with oxygen and combusted, pieces of the ship (and passengers) would have been scattered all over the place.
*Interesting side note, and thing-you-should-not-try-at-home: I had a science teacher in high school who, according to another science teacher, mixed hydrogen and oxygen in a balloon, let it float up to the ceiling, and poked it with a lit match taped to a meter stick. The explosion knocked panels down from the ceiling, temporarily defeaned the kids in the classroom so they had to be sent home, and brought people running from the other side of the campus because they thought a bomb had gone off. Good thing he was already tenured. =/
If the hydrogen from the Hindenburg really did combust, why can't I recall seeing parts of the ship flung hundreds of feet into the air from a massive shock wave?
I am extremely wary of people who make up new terms to reinforce their message.
You deprive someone of something without paying for it. You're stealing the money you owe them.
Are you so sure? I still buy movies and see them in theaters as often as I ever did, even though I have pirated on occasion. Before P2P and broadband, I would borrow the movies I knew I would only watch once from friends, or buy them at a yard sale, and I would buy the ones I knew I would watch many times. Now, I sometimes replace borrowing with downloading. I am well aware of the legal difference, but can you convince me of the moral difference? My friends certainly won't buy more copies more often because of my borrowing habits.
I don't know why Slashbots feel the need to point out that it's not "theft" constantly.
Because we believe words should mean specific things, and don't like the obvious attempts to redefine words to suit a particular cause?
It doesn't make it any less illegal or immoral.
I've argued a bit for the difference in morality, so I'll say it certainly does make it less illegal (or at least a different flavor of illegal). Speeding is not "just as illegal" as reckless driving. One carries harsher penalties for a more severe crime. Which is more severe: shoplifting a DVD, or downloading it?
Now, I say cutting Saruman is ridiculous, and would even demand he meet the same fate he does in the book (trying not to provide spoilers), but what do you expect with Bombadil? He's cool, and the Barrow Downs are scary, but they aren't "crucial," and the film is already 3 (and a half, for the SE) hours long! You can't translate from one medium to the next without sacrificing something.
I hope Saruman makes it into the theatrical release, because he's played a big enough role that the average viewer deserves to see the resoultion, but you can't expect movies to remain completely true to the books.
The string 'dead' does not appear anywhere in the article
One cannot fully comprehend the article simply by putting it through grep. Here: (emphasis mine)
Red Hat's decision to end support for its free software and the Novell-SuSE link-up have put the
last nail in the coffin of the free-software model, the Redmond behemoth believes
They also say these two events validate their own business model. Granted, this paragraph and a couple other shots at Linux are right in the middle of much more civil fare, but good FUD is always part poison and part candy.
Five years ago what young people were interested was technology
I've been here for five years, though mostly lurking. I've seen the yro stories get 800 comments and the "Announcing the AMD N+1 chip!" get, deservedly, 53. Semi-political stuff is what slashdot has always been popular for, and Microsoft has always been bashed. Now people are feeling that Linux is more ready for the desktop, and that future Microsoft OSes will be so horribly DRM'd that we, if not joe six-pack, will be migrating, so it's no wonder the conflict heats up more than it did in the past.
Spare me your va-linux conspiracy theories. Slashdot runs stories that get the most comments and get the most page views. It is driven by what we want.
Of course he's always been tried under Norwegian law, but it's still an example of a US-based company suing someone in another country, assuming that country has something like the DMCA. Norway, by all accounts (IANANorwegianL), did not have anti reverse engineering laws, yet Jon stood trial anyway. The same could be true of this case (after all, the C&D letter referenced the DMCA, an American law).
The sort of street cred you get for having javascript errors on your site? I hear that's how these young punks rebel against their elders these days. It's the programmer's equivalent to wearing pants around your knees.
It's not just the fact that they're using the DMCA like this, it's also that they don't care about the integrity of their software. They're basically saying "we'd rather not have you help us, for free even, because we care more about our image and will do anything to keep people from finding bad things about our product."
Seriously, if they don't care enough about their security to appreciate the bug reports, what do I, the potential customer, think about how much they care about other aspects of their software? If they're DMCA'ing security bugs, how seriously will they take regular bugs I encounter?
A certain college undergraduate (well, probably graduated or moved on now) in Norway would probably like to know the same thing.
Companies attempting to enforce the DMCA outside US jurisdiction isn't new. The first high profile DMCA case I remember (the one I alluded to above) was just such a case. The question is then "Does gamespy have enough clout to pull this off like the MPAA did?".
144,000 / 5,352 is almost 27. If 27 candidates were running, your theory would probably be correct. However, it means that it wasn't some random hard to find bug, but a very obvious bug that would be noticed on the first test run, so I doubt this is the case. At least, I hope the people writing our voting software test it...
...but you're hardly the first to realize this. Gandhi himself knew his tactics only worked because he fought a free society with a free press; his strategy of non-violence, in fact, was designed to use that free press to communicate the oppression without allowing himself to be labeled as an enemy. In other words, Gandhi chose his tactics after knowing his enemy.
To try to apply Gandhi's logic to this topic, we can let Microsoft continue its ruthless (and illegal) business practices, knowing full well that some people at least will see it and help fight it, and hope that the masses see it someday and stop supporting them. Or maybe that strategy isn't really applicable to this example, and this whole thread should be modded "offtopic."
I don't normally condone or encourage such things, but funniest flamebait ever. The funny mod probably won't last long though. Maybe I should put away the wine....
I figure it's like Microsoft saying the word innovation, or stickers on tech products saying "With new Intelliquick Technology!" (Look, honey, it must be both intelligent and quick, or else they wouldn't it name it Intelliquick!) You see, if I say it over and over, people will begin to believe it's true.
Ahh, marketing. Selling your soul is *so* much better than working out.
Guy with goatee: We'll be selling e-products over the e-web. Our e-services will include e-billing, e-shipping, and e-tracking. This will actually reduce our infrastructure and overhead costs to negative numbers, so we won't even need to actually sell anything.
PI: Here's all my money, and my 18 year old duaghter.
It may be the worst change, as it redefines one of the main characters of the film, but there are other annoying changes (for example, Han walking across Jabba's back, despite Jabba being the most powerful crime lord in the galaxy and having a bounty on Han's head. Imagine if someone tried that with Michael Corleone in the GodFather.)
In the original release of the film, Han shot Greedo in Mos Eisley before Greedo shot him. Ergo, Han is a bold blooded outlaw.
In the re-release in the late nineties, Greedo shoots first, misses by almost exactly one baseball stadium, and then Han shoots. Ergo, Han is a lucky fool with slow reactions.
Lucas completely changed the introduction we have to Han in order to make it more "kid friendly," a la the walkie-talkies for guns bit in E.T.
Actually, he won't even shoot at all. Greedo will instead be killed by his own shot reflecting back at him. Every time Han gets in a fire fight, or is otherwise in danger, he will escape only through dumb luck and ingenuity cleverly disguised as incompetence. It will also be revealed that he is related to Jar Jar Binks from the later triology, a scene which was unfortunately left on the cutting room floor, but was always intended to be a major part of the story. Han Solo has always been related to Jar Jar Binks; Lucas definetly did not make that up later.
This is how he was meant to be portrayed all those years ago, but the technology just wasn't there. Han was never a greedy, violent outlaw. That simply wasn't the case. The audience just mis-interpreted the character. In fact, Han's original signature costume was a pink jumpsuit with bunny ears and gumdrops affixed across the chest to create a rainbow smile, a technology that didn't exist in the 70's. Now, with CG fairies buzzing around him, singing a merry tune throughout the entire film, George Lucas will finally be able to realize his perfect vision of the Han Solo character.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, that's not real battle chess. It's not real battle chess unless my knights can slice limbs off opposing knights, and my queen can liquefy pawns.
That was real battle chess.
Or maybe not.
I know we all feel the same anger towards spammers, and the desire to take matters into our own hands when lawmakers and technology move too slowly for us, but there are some Very Good Reasons vigilante justice is discouraged. Innocent bystanders are a big one.
Making spam illegal and regulating ISPs to provide a minimum standard of diligence is something we should do as a society, through all those people we don't like but elect anyway. Or maybe since it will just go offshore, hopefully the nice techie overlords will fix it. Either way, DDoSing without due process isn't the answer.
You're suggesting an outer skin coated in the main ingredient for rocket fuel isn't sufficient to explain a raging fireball?
I haven't seen a video of the Hindenburg disaster in quite a while, but I don't recall an actual earth shaking* explosion. I recall a big blimp-sized airborn bonfire. I would imagine (IANAChemsit) if the hydrogen had mixed with oxygen and combusted, pieces of the ship (and passengers) would have been scattered all over the place.
*Interesting side note, and thing-you-should-not-try-at-home: I had a science teacher in high school who, according to another science teacher, mixed hydrogen and oxygen in a balloon, let it float up to the ceiling, and poked it with a lit match taped to a meter stick. The explosion knocked panels down from the ceiling, temporarily defeaned the kids in the classroom so they had to be sent home, and brought people running from the other side of the campus because they thought a bomb had gone off. Good thing he was already tenured. =/
If the hydrogen from the Hindenburg really did combust, why can't I recall seeing parts of the ship flung hundreds of feet into the air from a massive shock wave?
Now, I say cutting Saruman is ridiculous, and would even demand he meet the same fate he does in the book (trying not to provide spoilers), but what do you expect with Bombadil? He's cool, and the Barrow Downs are scary, but they aren't "crucial," and the film is already 3 (and a half, for the SE) hours long! You can't translate from one medium to the next without sacrificing something.
I hope Saruman makes it into the theatrical release, because he's played a big enough role that the average viewer deserves to see the resoultion, but you can't expect movies to remain completely true to the books.
I've been here for five years, though mostly lurking. I've seen the yro stories get 800 comments and the "Announcing the AMD N+1 chip!" get, deservedly, 53. Semi-political stuff is what slashdot has always been popular for, and Microsoft has always been bashed. Now people are feeling that Linux is more ready for the desktop, and that future Microsoft OSes will be so horribly DRM'd that we, if not joe six-pack, will be migrating, so it's no wonder the conflict heats up more than it did in the past.
Spare me your va-linux conspiracy theories. Slashdot runs stories that get the most comments and get the most page views. It is driven by what we want.
Of course he's always been tried under Norwegian law, but it's still an example of a US-based company suing someone in another country, assuming that country has something like the DMCA. Norway, by all accounts (IANANorwegianL), did not have anti reverse engineering laws, yet Jon stood trial anyway. The same could be true of this case (after all, the C&D letter referenced the DMCA, an American law).
The sort of street cred you get for having javascript errors on your site? I hear that's how these young punks rebel against their elders these days. It's the programmer's equivalent to wearing pants around your knees.
It's not just the fact that they're using the DMCA like this, it's also that they don't care about the integrity of their software. They're basically saying "we'd rather not have you help us, for free even, because we care more about our image and will do anything to keep people from finding bad things about our product."
/cheapshot>
Seriously, if they don't care enough about their security to appreciate the bug reports, what do I, the potential customer, think about how much they care about other aspects of their software? If they're DMCA'ing security bugs, how seriously will they take regular bugs I encounter?
Plus, their site is ugly.
A certain college undergraduate (well, probably graduated or moved on now) in Norway would probably like to know the same thing.
Companies attempting to enforce the DMCA outside US jurisdiction isn't new. The first high profile DMCA case I remember (the one I alluded to above) was just such a case. The question is then "Does gamespy have enough clout to pull this off like the MPAA did?".
144,000 / 5,352 is almost 27. If 27 candidates were running, your theory would probably be correct. However, it means that it wasn't some random hard to find bug, but a very obvious bug that would be noticed on the first test run, so I doubt this is the case. At least, I hope the people writing our voting software test it...
...but you're hardly the first to realize this. Gandhi himself knew his tactics only worked because he fought a free society with a free press; his strategy of non-violence, in fact, was designed to use that free press to communicate the oppression without allowing himself to be labeled as an enemy. In other words, Gandhi chose his tactics after knowing his enemy.
To try to apply Gandhi's logic to this topic, we can let Microsoft continue its ruthless (and illegal) business practices, knowing full well that some people at least will see it and help fight it, and hope that the masses see it someday and stop supporting them. Or maybe that strategy isn't really applicable to this example, and this whole thread should be modded "offtopic."
I don't normally condone or encourage such things, but funniest flamebait ever. The funny mod probably won't last long though. Maybe I should put away the wine....
You are now officially way too into this.
I figure it's like Microsoft saying the word innovation, or stickers on tech products saying "With new Intelliquick Technology!" (Look, honey, it must be both intelligent and quick, or else they wouldn't it name it Intelliquick!) You see, if I say it over and over, people will begin to believe it's true.
Ahh, marketing. Selling your soul is *so* much better than working out.
Potential Investor: What's your business plan?
Guy with goatee: We'll be selling e-products over the e-web. Our e-services will include e-billing, e-shipping, and e-tracking. This will actually reduce our infrastructure and overhead costs to negative numbers, so we won't even need to actually sell anything.
PI: Here's all my money, and my 18 year old duaghter.
Unfortunately, they don't. The underwear gnomes never figured out that step 2 is "Get money from Microsoft."
I believe (s)he was using Nike as an example of creating horrendous profit margins by inflating demand.
Actually, they die several times (each), but it is never relevant to the plot. Sort of like Kenny in South Park.
It may be the worst change, as it redefines one of the main characters of the film, but there are other annoying changes (for example, Han walking across Jabba's back, despite Jabba being the most powerful crime lord in the galaxy and having a bounty on Han's head. Imagine if someone tried that with Michael Corleone in the GodFather.)
I'd like the original versions, please.
In the original release of the film, Han shot Greedo in Mos Eisley before Greedo shot him. Ergo, Han is a bold blooded outlaw.
In the re-release in the late nineties, Greedo shoots first, misses by almost exactly one baseball stadium, and then Han shoots. Ergo, Han is a lucky fool with slow reactions.
Lucas completely changed the introduction we have to Han in order to make it more "kid friendly," a la the walkie-talkies for guns bit in E.T.
Actually, he won't even shoot at all. Greedo will instead be killed by his own shot reflecting back at him. Every time Han gets in a fire fight, or is otherwise in danger, he will escape only through dumb luck and ingenuity cleverly disguised as incompetence. It will also be revealed that he is related to Jar Jar Binks from the later triology, a scene which was unfortunately left on the cutting room floor, but was always intended to be a major part of the story. Han Solo has always been related to Jar Jar Binks; Lucas definetly did not make that up later.
This is how he was meant to be portrayed all those years ago, but the technology just wasn't there. Han was never a greedy, violent outlaw. That simply wasn't the case. The audience just mis-interpreted the character. In fact, Han's original signature costume was a pink jumpsuit with bunny ears and gumdrops affixed across the chest to create a rainbow smile, a technology that didn't exist in the 70's. Now, with CG fairies buzzing around him, singing a merry tune throughout the entire film, George Lucas will finally be able to realize his perfect vision of the Han Solo character.