Bush wins the electorial and the popular vote (by a nice big margin).
I just find it suprising that the American people basically just gave their stamp of approval for Bush's actions for the past four years.
(Either candidate would have protected American self-interests and gotten crappy intellegence from CIA/FBI and made bad/good mistakes with the economy. So there isn't alot of difference here.)
I THINK (and I hope I'm wrong), the American people might have given Bush the ok to institute a draft. He's not going to be up for re-election and he is going to want to desperately wrap things up in the next 2-3 years (and use the last 1-2 years to set up his legacy).
>"Poorer" countries will be the main adopter of Open Source. It will be cheaper; and it will encourage creativity and growth of IT.
No, poorer countries will adopt OpenSource because its cheaper. Period.
If you think that any third-world country does anything for their IT industry is laughable. They have bigger issues rather than breeding creativity in IT.
I was just about to say that Windows 95 is a good example of this point.
Loads of games still being produced which still run on 95, alot more than Macs. Usability.
And as more people move on to XP or other systems, blackhats are slowly turning their attention away from 95. Just don't use IE. Who makes new viruses for DOS?
From the press release at http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/pressoffice/en/2004/2004_10_27_rrwa_000?c=us &cs=555&l=en&s=biz
"SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9 will be available with Dell PowerEdge 1850, 2800 and 2850 servers worldwide in the fourth quarter. For more information on Dell/Novell solutions, services and tools, please visit: www.dell.com/novell or www.novell.com/dell . "
>And isn't what we're talking about a form of fraud, which actually is tried by courts?
I was assuming that it is not because the original poster point was that "Pay-per-view" is exactly that, pay for each view.
The person replying gave the example of the house and movie, implying that even if everyone understood the transaction and acting like a logical person. Do you think you can go back to the courts and say "Both him and me did exactly what reasonable people would do but I want to reverse the contract beause I don't feel its good for me any more."?
Fraud is a whole different story. I'm not sure how the "pay-per-view" concept implies that there is fraud.
>if someone looks at my house, considers buying it, but then decides to build a copy instead, I have no right to demand they pay me money.
Someone could. Building plans/design can be copyrighted.
Copying a building design is as if I listened to a Beatles song and then sampled it in my new song. I will have to pay the owner of the song due to copyright. I can't bring up the argument "I'm not stealing anything physical or denying the orginial owner his use."
>It's not a free copy: someone has spent the money to buy a blank DVD and the time required to copy it.
Thats like saying "I didn't steal this money from his wallet. I earned it by worked by chasing him down and beating him up with this cub I invested in."
>since there is a large discrepancy between the market price of the movie and the market price of the house.
There are alot of assumption you are making.
Suppose my house is a cardboard box?
Suppose you gain ownership of Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane?
In any case, I would find it hard to believe that any serious judge would hear the case just based on single, sole fact that one party feels they paid too much, with no other factors involved.
If that was true, the courts would be jammed and you would never buy or sell anything.
>it doesn't mean you actually have to give me your house for a move unless you're really really stupid and don't know all your rights.
Huh?
Party 1: Give me legal ownership of your house or equivlent money and I will let you watch/own this movie. Party 2: Agreed.
Ok, the Party 2 might be dumb or smart depending on the worth of his house or if he gains rights to something he believes is worth the house. But how does Party 2 knowing all his rights makes the agreement invalid?
>I don't have the money to rent an apartment in Bermuda
And there are people who don't have the money to have that second child. Or afford to buy stocks. Or afford that higher level education. Its not a "corporation-not-playing-fair" issue, its happens everywhere.
>they get my money when I buy things, but I don't have any way to control them,
How does a company control you? Why do you want a product-for-control? If you bought bread from a person, how do you then control them in a way you can't with a big company?
> they don't provide any benefit to society.
How about selling you a product? You, as part of society, validate their service by buying their product. (And there are loads of companies who have "died" because no-one would "validate" what they had to offer society.)
Considering its not available for sale yet, its a good bet it was taken illegally (stolen) from the publisher or developer. Thats usually how it done, stolen from the cd factory.
>we place as much value on making fun of something as on making an actual point.
The point WAS to make fun of it.
Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
>A government, we have to share. And we don't have root on it. So while we're trying, in our small ways, to hack the gov't to do X, other people are working, oftentimes much harder, to make it do not-X.
Great! So now you've defined what to hack and its unique problems. Sort of like getting your PC and its strange sound card to work with Linux AND have it dual boot so other members of your family can use it too.
Nothing you have pointed out makes it impossible to hack. Is it hard to hack? Sure, but no one is implying that it isn't.
Re:But apparently we can't sense...
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to your post, which is mature and open-minded?
Bush wins the electorial and the popular vote (by a nice big margin).
I just find it suprising that the American people basically just gave their stamp of approval for Bush's actions for the past four years.
(Either candidate would have protected American self-interests and gotten crappy intellegence from CIA/FBI and made bad/good mistakes with the economy. So there isn't alot of difference here.)
I THINK (and I hope I'm wrong), the American people might have given Bush the ok to institute a draft. He's not going to be up for re-election and he is going to want to desperately wrap things up in the next 2-3 years (and use the last 1-2 years to set up his legacy).
>What we have done is elect the man of *our* choice
And thats the shocking thing. Even after all that Bush (and his team) has done, you still re-elected him.
Kerry would have looked after your interests also. You've basically given him the thumbs up to all that Bush did in the past four years.
Finally, an slashdot story that is non-American-centric!
>what does the patriot act allow the US government to do that it wasn't able to do before, just illegally?
By doing things legally now, its admissable in court.
Phht. Its not as if anyone here is going to actually read the article.
>"Poorer" countries will be the main adopter of Open Source. It will be cheaper; and it will encourage creativity and growth of IT.
No, poorer countries will adopt OpenSource because its cheaper. Period.
If you think that any third-world country does anything for their IT industry is laughable. They have bigger issues rather than breeding creativity in IT.
I was just about to say that Windows 95 is a good example of this point.
Loads of games still being produced which still run on 95, alot more than Macs. Usability.
And as more people move on to XP or other systems, blackhats are slowly turning their attention away from 95. Just don't use IE. Who makes new viruses for DOS?
From the press release at http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx /corp/pressoffice/en/2004/2004_10_27_rrwa_000?c=us &cs=555&l=en&s=biz
"SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9 will be available with Dell PowerEdge 1850, 2800 and 2850 servers worldwide in the fourth quarter. For more information on Dell/Novell solutions, services and tools, please visit: www.dell.com/novell or www.novell.com/dell . "
Note the future tense.
7 out of 10 links are to one site on the front page of slashdot.
Obviously, this is a dare.
This is an excellent summary, of the new Yahoo!. service, that I'm sure to enjoy, and I hope you do too, because it is well edited.
>And isn't what we're talking about a form of fraud, which actually is tried by courts?
I was assuming that it is not because the original poster point was that "Pay-per-view" is exactly that, pay for each view.
The person replying gave the example of the house and movie, implying that even if everyone understood the transaction and acting like a logical person. Do you think you can go back to the courts and say "Both him and me did exactly what reasonable people would do but I want to reverse the contract beause I don't feel its good for me any more."?
Fraud is a whole different story. I'm not sure how the "pay-per-view" concept implies that there is fraud.
>if someone looks at my house, considers buying it, but then decides to build a copy instead, I have no right to demand they pay me money.
Someone could. Building plans/design can be copyrighted.
Copying a building design is as if I listened to a Beatles song and then sampled it in my new song. I will have to pay the owner of the song due to copyright. I can't bring up the argument "I'm not stealing anything physical or denying the orginial owner his use."
>It's not a free copy: someone has spent the money to buy a blank DVD and the time required to copy it.
Thats like saying "I didn't steal this money from his wallet. I earned it by worked by chasing him down and beating him up with this cub I invested in."
>since there is a large discrepancy between the market price of the movie and the market price of the house.
There are alot of assumption you are making.
Suppose my house is a cardboard box?
Suppose you gain ownership of Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane?
In any case, I would find it hard to believe that any serious judge would hear the case just based on single, sole fact that one party feels they paid too much, with no other factors involved.
If that was true, the courts would be jammed and you would never buy or sell anything.
>it doesn't mean you actually have to give me your house for a move unless you're really really stupid and don't know all your rights.
Huh?
Party 1: Give me legal ownership of your house or equivlent money and I will let you watch/own this movie.
Party 2: Agreed.
Ok, the Party 2 might be dumb or smart depending on the worth of his house or if he gains rights to something he believes is worth the house.
But how does Party 2 knowing all his rights makes the agreement invalid?
>I am so sick of "get the facts" and "Windows TCO is lower".
Yeah, I'm getting tired of seeing the same MS ads on slashdot too.
>I don't have the money to rent an apartment in Bermuda
And there are people who don't have the money to have that second child. Or afford to buy stocks. Or afford that higher level education. Its not a "corporation-not-playing-fair" issue, its happens everywhere.
>they get my money when I buy things, but I don't have any way to control them,
How does a company control you? Why do you want a product-for-control? If you bought bread from a person, how do you then control them in a way you can't with a big company?
> they don't provide any benefit to society.
How about selling you a product? You, as part of society, validate their service by buying their product. (And there are loads of companies who have "died" because no-one would "validate" what they had to offer society.)
Get a 486 for $20. eg -
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cat
Install;
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~knutb/linux486/linux486.h
>He's really grasping at straws, isn't he? Anecdotal evidence suggests...
Ironic.
>Has a copy of the game actually been stolen
Considering its not available for sale yet, its a good bet it was taken illegally (stolen) from the publisher or developer. Thats usually how it done, stolen from the cd factory.
>they were victimised because of the info they had, not who they were.
No, universities, military, government are targetted for who they are.
When a person starts cracking a new machine, its very rare they have any idea what data is on the machine.
>we place as much value on making fun of something as on making an actual point.
The point WAS to make fun of it.
>A government, we have to share. And we don't have root on it. So while we're trying, in our small ways, to hack the gov't to do X, other people are working, oftentimes much harder, to make it do not-X.
Great! So now you've defined what to hack and its unique problems. Sort of like getting your PC and its strange sound card to work with Linux AND have it dual boot so other members of your family can use it too.
Nothing you have pointed out makes it impossible to hack. Is it hard to hack? Sure, but no one is implying that it isn't.
Thank you, that needed to be said.
>but that's not how they market it.
n dex.php ?date=20040714000000
... draw you into the most frightening and gripping first-person GAMING experience ever created.
From iD own press release. (caps are mine)
http://www.idsoftware.com/business/press/i
"DOOM 3's dramatic storyline,
"DOOM 3 is a VIDEOGAME experience"
"DOOM 3 has been rated "M" for Mature by the ESRB. " ESRB does not rate engines. They rate games.
They sent pre-releases to GAMING magazines/websites. Also, note that they use the term "DOOM 3" not "Doom 3 engine" as you assert they market it as.
So how did they not market it as a game?