The Final Jeopardy that beat Ken [spoiler warning]
on
They Killed Ken!
·
· Score: 4, Funny
This is the final Jeopardy question that ended Ken's streak.
Topic: Life, the Universe, and Everything Answer: 42
Unfortunatly a freak power outtage stopped the answer from being displayed once they gave their answers but afterwards an odd robot came out and told everyone that they were all simpletons and they along with the show were incredibly dreary and pointless and they all got the question wrong anyway but it didn't really matter because Life, the Universe, and Everything don't matter. The robot then talked to Mr. Jennings for a couple minutes after which Mr. Jennings announced in a depressed sounding voice that he didn't really see any point in going on so he was retiring from the show. A spacecraft then landed and an alien then came out and called Mr. Jennings a nerd then flew away.
Well there ya have it, the end of Ken Jenning's streak.
Well, the President of Diebold did claim in 2003 that his company was
committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.
I suppose the California officials are upset that Diebold didn't include their state in the obvious corruptions of an opaque and unmonitorable voting system.
Grr I already moderated the AC which replied to you up (who btw offered this informative link which will now be negated by this post and I was going to mod you down too btw:). Just to set the record straight he didn't claim that Diebold would help deliver the votes, he said "I am committed", an "I" you conveniently truncated from your quote. It may be your belief that that is what he actually meant, personally I've always felt that it was just an unfortunate choice of words and he was talking about campaigning (I mean how stupid do you think this guy is to admit election rigging publicly).
Now don't get me wrong, I think it's more likely than not that he has some sort of plan for rigging the election in mind, I know the "don't attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity" axiom but the magnitude of the stupidity required to reach the current lack of security (they can't be that stupid can they?) combined with the fact that other than keeping the exploits more secret and non-obvious I can't think of much that I would do different if I was rigging the election (although I'd rig for the other side;).
Still that's all secondary since one thing I cannot stand on any side of a debate, and will mod down every time if I don't respond to it, is factually incorrect information, especially if such information is close enough to the truth to avoid a closer inspection and if I feel that inaccuracy may be deliberate. Yes he gave a highly controvertial claim, yes he may infact be planning to use his company to rig the election in Ohio, but the subject in that quote you gave is not his company, it's him. All it takes is one bit of damning misinformation like that to be launched on by the other side in a debate and instantly you've lost your credibility, it might be fun and satisfying to ignore the middleman by combining fact with your conclusion but flase statements like that work only to the benefit of Diebold.
You know, I am an American living in Canada and *I* was going to say the same thing about *your* Maple leaf. I'm not knocking it or anything, but you Canadians put that leaf on EVERYTHING. It's in the middle of the McDonald's "Golden arches" up here, and finds it's way onto every single logo, it seems.
I guess what it really boils down to is BOTH our countries utilize the flag as a symbol of patriotism, and as citizens of our respective countries who are "desensitized" to some degree to our own insignia, we will notice the other's use of said insignia much more.
True to an extent though I find that the use of the Maple leaf is used primarly as a way for companies to signify that they're either Canadian, or more often, have a Canadian Division. This is used to give the impression of a Canadian company because we really don't like giving you guys any more money:) This doesn't happen with American companies partially becase they are often assumed to be American by default (and thus an additional symbol is redundant and causes problems outside the US) and I don't think the Stars and Stripes can fit into a logo as innocuously as a small Maple Leaf.
Outside of Corporate Logos I do feel that the proliferation of American flags far outstrips anything that happens in Canada. Consider the number of people who fly american flags on their lawns, I can't remember the last time I saw a Canadian flag on someones lawn, even on stores it seems the only time I see a Canadian flag is near the border and then it is often accompanied by an American flag. Not that anything is wrong with this it just happens that we just express our patriotism in different ways, mainly through insulting Americans and self-deprecating humour. Still I feel that using an American flag as the logo for the politics section is an inappropriate direction for/. to take.
I'm guessing from the logo of the section that this will be a 'No', but will there be coverage of Non-US elections as well?
Ack, I hadn't even noticed the logo there, nothing against Americans but as a Canadian I have to say that I already see quite enough of your flag:) I have nothing against patriotism or anything but after a point the sheer quantity of stars and stripes I see around tends to get a little annoying. Now I can see the reasoning behind US-centric stories for the next few months, what with the election and all, but there is certainly a lot else going on in the world, even a story already in the new section on The Australian Prime Minister. Also note all the stuff currently going on in the EU relating to patents and IP, China with it's massive population and strict media control, not to mention countless other events going on all over this planet. While the majority of the IP's that hit the front page might be from the US I'm sure anyone who reads the comments can attest to a strongly international presence that shows up. I feel that using a clearly pro-American logo not only incites the "I'm not an American" trolls (seriously do they want to make this a trollfest?) but also causes the perception that the politics being discussed are isolated from the rest of the world and people outside the US can neither affect nor are being affected by it, a perception which is extremely dangerous. Politics is a truly international affair, as a Canadian I can say that I'm much more scared by who might win the US election then by any of the candidates in my own, as well American's should be greatly interested by events all over the Middle East as well as what happens in the EU and China for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure what a good logo would be but clearly an American flag is highly improper for a wide variety of reasons.
Seriously, when are the editors going to wake up and stop letting this guy use/. as his personal marketing service. He's submitted almost 180 stories since December 2002, every one linking to his "technology blog" where he takes in money from the Ad impressions (I'm not linking to it for obvious reasons). Is he hoping to submit so many stories that he'll get a full time job? Maybe he want's to replace Jon Katz:) I don't mind a poster occationally pluggin their own site but not every couple days and don't try to sneak in your site at the end as some brilliant discussion that is crutial to read (without even specifically mentioning it's your site).
Interesting, 3 AC replies to your comment, all pro-Roland. Other pro-Roland comments I've seen in this story (admittedly I've only read a handful of comments below 3) 0. Now I'm not saying that at least one of these ACs is Roland... no wait, that's exactly what I'm saying!!
Unfortunately, it looks like they succeeded in their first round of 'turfing because they even got me to talk about them; however, they won't get me to say their name (I won't let them enter my consciousness just yet, even if they've planted seeds for my subconscious).
Well I won't say their name because I don't even remember it, not only did I not RTFA nor RTFS(ummary), but I didn't even RTFT(itle)!! Haha let's see you're astroturfing compete with my miniscule attention span, why I bet...
the Recording Industry Association of America said his organization had not reviewed the software
Interestingly, the programmer is from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Out of the RIAA's jurisdiction.
When I looked at this point I felt there was something slightly disturbing about it but wasn't sure what it was, after a moment it clicked. The RIAA isn't a law enforcement agency, they don't have a jurisdiction!!!
How have we allowed a private organization to gain powers so great that we would confuse them with the police?
I work at Microsoft as a develop in the Windows team and I say you are full of it. You're friend has got his facts all wrong or you misunderstood him. No one here examines GPL code, we don't want it mingled in our proprietary code and there are policies against doing such a thing.
That's why those guys will never write a line of code for Microsoft. Microsoft is a very big company, they can definatly afford to hire a bunch of developers who have the sole purpose of trying to extrapolate their enemies next move and then patent it.
...I prefer to just stick to one thing that works, not waste my time going to the next coolest looking display manager. It needs to be rather revolutionary to get my attention. So why should I try it?
So don't, I'm guessing they won't really miss you anyways and if you don't want to go through the effort (somewhat nontrivial) of trying it out then don't. Then again what do you mean by "works"?
There are a lot of people using windows, most are not going to switch to linux anytime soon because for them windows "works", of course they still have all the trouble with spyware, viruses, no multiple desktops, etc, but they say it "works". Same with IE, they figure it "works" and don't even consider activeX wonkyness or tabbed browsing (don't know what SP2 has done for this). So at what point does your window manager "work"? When it compiles? When it has no bugs? When it has nothing you can point to from your dialy usage and say "that's a bug"? Maybe when annoying UI issues are gone? I figure the only way a program is ever truly done is if it does everything you've ever wanted it to do as simply and efficiently as possible. So if you want to put in the effort to see what you might be missing from your window manager that "works" go ahead and try it out. I can tell you that I'm certainly not going to try it out today (heck probably won't even RTFA) but sometime later when I have some time to spare, maybe days, maybe weeks, maybe never, who knows, I might just give it a whirl.
Honestly, is anybody surprised by this move? If there's one thing that history has taught us about George Lucas, it's that he has exactly one master - money.
If Lucas thinks that he can get money out of the frothing masses of geeks, then he'll do it. Hence, the DVDs to be released this fall, after saying that he would only release DVDs as a full 6-box set?
I honestly ask, is anybody surprised anymore?
Now I realize it's setting a bad precedent but sometimes these measures are necessary and the course of action is clear. Clearly Lucas is only doing this for the money so there is only one way to convince him to stop. We need to get together enough geeks to pay George Lucas to stop making Star Wars Movies.
Jerry Falwell's page is falwell.com, the page in question here is fallwell.com, it seems quite clear this is a deliberate attempt to bring in visitors who intended to visit falwell.com but made a fairly common misspelling, one which has been made numerous times in the comments though this is likely due in large part to people thinking that Fallwell was the correct spelling from the domain name in question.
What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.
I have a better reason than that. The fact that I don't think I'm completely unique. I feel that there is only a finite set of factors at work when I vote and a finite set of reactions, some specific to me, but many applicable to others as well, as well there are a lot of people, lets refer to them as my voting group, who respond very much the same way to these factors as I do. Therefore if there are enough factors to make me vote for party X then there are enough factors to make my voting group to vote for party X as well. In fact by the very fact I decide to vote for party X in a way I am affirming that these factors are enough to make me, and thus my voting group that to vote for party X as well. As a result I now have not only one vote but dozens, perhaps hundreds, a lot more influencial. Sure my logic is a little fuzzy but it's a great motivation to vote!
'Although the state's right to take all necessary measures that it deems necessary is recognized, there is fear that these measures will have a negative impact on basic human rights.'"
WTF?
Constitutional Amendment 28:
"The state shall have the right to take all necessary measures that it deems necessary."
A very good point, the Greeks are merely using the powers granted to them by the US Constitution...
We didn't have a revolution, but still have at least the promise of decent Olympics coverage. That's the theory, anyway: the last couple of times have been dominated by talking heads, cutesy "background" spots (especially the Sydney Olympics), and general chatter about almost everything but sports.
Agreed, they spend far too little time on the actual sports. Though it can be worse, a couple times I saw what was supposedly coverage of the Hawaii Ironman. You could barely tell there was a race going on, they gave some bizarre broken up profiles of the athletes interlaced with the occasional ten second shot of the race. The only reason I had watched the second broadcast is I assumed that the first was a horrendously long intro sequence.
They also had a nasty habit of telling us that Canadians placed 5th, 10th and 21st, but never told who actually won.
Must disagree there, the one thing that impressed me was how much they covered international athletes. A depressingly large number of the events that they covered didn't have a single Canadian in them at all, and when they did the top athletes got just as much, usually more if the Canadian wasn't in real contention, coverage. Of course the profiles were predominantly Canadian but I was impressed that the coverage dealt more with the race rather than the couple racers with a maple leaf. I can't really recall if the winners were mentioned when the Canadians results were given but I do recall that they did it on a score board where they would go through the pages. Thus if a Canadian came along they would be mentioned. I would also note that these were fringe sports which they wouldn't of covered otherwise, while it doesn't excuse them ignoring the winners it does explain why (they weren't the reason for the info in the first place).
IIRC, icravetv.com used a zip code based system to identify their "legal" (canadian) users from their "illegal" (american) users. Type in a Canadian zip code and off you go.
That's a pretty good idea, if you type in a Canadian zip code then off you go, off their site that is since there's no such thing as a Canadian zip code.
Does 'Vince" truly exist? Is the attrocious grammar, spelling, and sentence structure merely due to poor linguistic skills or is he trying to draw sympathy by protraying himself as a fairly unintelligent person that was taken advantage of? If his name is Sam Wise (yeah like that sounds real) then why is his comcast page mich617?
But perhaps the most puzzling question of all,
How in the heck is his page standing up to a/.ing so well?!?
I think there's more to this fellow than meets the eye...
It's like somebody is stealing your bike just to take it for a service.
Would you like that?
On the contrary it's like someone seeing your house is being robbed (or at least broken into) then breaking in themselves to kick out the intruders then fixing the lock on that window. Now you just have to hope that this good samaratan is trustworthy once they get inside, and also that they're smart enough to only go into your house if it's being invaded and they're not just check everyones house for a bad window latch and making a big nuisance.
I've come to the conclusion that until the RIAA makes some serious changes in the way they treat their artists and their customers I won't buy a thing from them. Does this mean I'm giving up music?
No, though it does mean I won't be buying some of my favorite artists. It also means I need to find some new ones and the place I've been looking is Magnatunes, they're true to their slogan, "We are not Evil", and have a fairly large selection of artists, not all of them are my taste but then again I don't like a lot of big label artists either. You're probably not going to find a Paul Simon or The Beatles here but I've found some nice music. No harm in checking out of course, no harm worrying that you'll buy an album that you won't like. You see all their music is available for listening right on their website so you can listen to a particular album as many times as you want before buying (in a good but lossy format though), then if you decide you want to buy you get to pay anywhere from $5-$18 US, the artist gets half of course. Of course you're wondering if people will actually buy when they can get the music whenever they want for free? Well I've bought two albums already and am quite close to buying a third. Go ahead RIAA, make as much trouble as you want, I don't need you anymore, whine until you end up on the street with the other crackheads, I'll be helping the good guys.
One thing for sure is that Sveasoft is violating the spirit of the GPL. Specifically through
A) Charging $50 for access to the source
and
B) Marking the binaries then cancelling the subscription of redistributers
Now to the legal stuff (btw IANAL), as to Sveasoft's claims that the people who redistributed the binaries were violating the GPL they may be correct unless the redistributors offered, for $50, to order the CD with source from Sveasoft. Assuming their subscription wasn't cancelled (which it was), though they could also offer to work through someone with a working subscription. Still if they had not followed these steps they would be in technical violation of the GPL. Or of course they could just supply the info on how to get the source from Sveasoft (eg subscribe & pay up) under GPL section 3. c Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Now if Sveasoft is violating the GPL and they passed on his offer then I can't really say if they are violating. Regardless I suspect the redistributors did none of these things and are infact violating the GPL.
As to whether Sveasoft is violating the GPL. We'll look at A. This might be allowable (a loophole in the GPL), if for each request he goes, takes a CD, throws it in the burner and burns it himself (charging of course for his time along with the physical medium). As to B, the cancelling subscriptions of redistributors, this is apparently allowed (FSF says so). However there's also this little bit from the summary, Sveasoft is also ending the subscriptions (but refunding their money) of people who have posted their MD5 sums of the binaries. It says nowhere in the subscriber contract that they can't do this. If Sveasoft is in fact doing this, and if the source CD is only available to subscribers (which it appears to be) then these people are having their access to the source revoked without reason. That being said I'm not sure if that's just a contract violation or a GPL violation too.
Wait don't go away yet, I'm not quite done with B. I didn't actually see the FSF response however I suspect they ignored or didn't know something and that B may still lead to a GPL violation in another way. The very fact that they cancelled anyones subscription, before a period of three years after recieving the binary, likely violates the GPL by section 3.b
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
I don't see anything there about revoke rights to the source to someone who you've distributed the binary to (ie the cancelled subscription), these people had a right to obtain the source code, even if it cost $50, for a period of three years. Cancelling their subscriptions has cut the period short and in doing so should violate the GPL. He could possibly claim they cuold just resubscribe but I fail to see how this is a "cost of physically performing source distribution", besides if they ask to resubscribe and he refuses them then it's a violation for sure.
Thus given my understanding of the situation and the GPL I believe he is violating the GPL.
If there's a class-action lawsuit, I will take the proceeds and dump it right back to Redhat, in the form of subscriptions or straight donations.
IANAL but don't you have to join a classaction lawsuit to get any money? Furthermore wouldn't the proceeds of a sucessful lawsuit be increased by you joining (ie value of your shares)? It seems to me for you to join the lawsuit and then donating the money back to Redhat you would in fact just be giving some of Redhat's (and yours since you own stock) money to that sleaseball lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the final Jeopardy question that ended Ken's streak.
Topic: Life, the Universe, and Everything
Answer: 42
Unfortunatly a freak power outtage stopped the answer from being displayed once they gave their answers but afterwards an odd robot came out and told everyone that they were all simpletons and they along with the show were incredibly dreary and pointless and they all got the question wrong anyway but it didn't really matter because Life, the Universe, and Everything don't matter. The robot then talked to Mr. Jennings for a couple minutes after which Mr. Jennings announced in a depressed sounding voice that he didn't really see any point in going on so he was retiring from the show. A spacecraft then landed and an alien then came out and called Mr. Jennings a nerd then flew away.
Well there ya have it, the end of Ken Jenning's streak.
Well, the President of Diebold did claim in 2003 that his company was
committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.
I suppose the California officials are upset that Diebold didn't include their state in the obvious corruptions of an opaque and unmonitorable voting system.
Grr I already moderated the AC which replied to you up (who btw offered this informative link which will now be negated by this post and I was going to mod you down too btw:). Just to set the record straight he didn't claim that Diebold would help deliver the votes, he said "I am committed", an "I" you conveniently truncated from your quote. It may be your belief that that is what he actually meant, personally I've always felt that it was just an unfortunate choice of words and he was talking about campaigning (I mean how stupid do you think this guy is to admit election rigging publicly).
Now don't get me wrong, I think it's more likely than not that he has some sort of plan for rigging the election in mind, I know the "don't attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity" axiom but the magnitude of the stupidity required to reach the current lack of security (they can't be that stupid can they?) combined with the fact that other than keeping the exploits more secret and non-obvious I can't think of much that I would do different if I was rigging the election (although I'd rig for the other side;).
Still that's all secondary since one thing I cannot stand on any side of a debate, and will mod down every time if I don't respond to it, is factually incorrect information, especially if such information is close enough to the truth to avoid a closer inspection and if I feel that inaccuracy may be deliberate. Yes he gave a highly controvertial claim, yes he may infact be planning to use his company to rig the election in Ohio, but the subject in that quote you gave is not his company, it's him. All it takes is one bit of damning misinformation like that to be launched on by the other side in a debate and instantly you've lost your credibility, it might be fun and satisfying to ignore the middleman by combining fact with your conclusion but flase statements like that work only to the benefit of Diebold.
You know, I am an American living in Canada and *I* was going to say the same thing about *your* Maple leaf. I'm not knocking it or anything, but you Canadians put that leaf on EVERYTHING. It's in the middle of the McDonald's "Golden arches" up here, and finds it's way onto every single logo, it seems.
I guess what it really boils down to is BOTH our countries utilize the flag as a symbol of patriotism, and as citizens of our respective countries who are "desensitized" to some degree to our own insignia, we will notice the other's use of said insignia much more.
True to an extent though I find that the use of the Maple leaf is used primarly as a way for companies to signify that they're either Canadian, or more often, have a Canadian Division. This is used to give the impression of a Canadian company because we really don't like giving you guys any more money:) This doesn't happen with American companies partially becase they are often assumed to be American by default (and thus an additional symbol is redundant and causes problems outside the US) and I don't think the Stars and Stripes can fit into a logo as innocuously as a small Maple Leaf.
Outside of Corporate Logos I do feel that the proliferation of American flags far outstrips anything that happens in Canada. Consider the number of people who fly american flags on their lawns, I can't remember the last time I saw a Canadian flag on someones lawn, even on stores it seems the only time I see a Canadian flag is near the border and then it is often accompanied by an American flag. Not that anything is wrong with this it just happens that we just express our patriotism in different ways, mainly through insulting Americans and self-deprecating humour. Still I feel that using an American flag as the logo for the politics section is an inappropriate direction for
I'm guessing from the logo of the section that this will be a 'No', but will there be coverage of Non-US elections as well?
:) I have nothing against patriotism or anything but after a point the sheer quantity of stars and stripes I see around tends to get a little annoying.
Ack, I hadn't even noticed the logo there, nothing against Americans but as a Canadian I have to say that I already see quite enough of your flag
Now I can see the reasoning behind US-centric stories for the next few months, what with the election and all, but there is certainly a lot else going on in the world, even a story already in the new section on The Australian Prime Minister. Also note all the stuff currently going on in the EU relating to patents and IP, China with it's massive population and strict media control, not to mention countless other events going on all over this planet. While the majority of the IP's that hit the front page might be from the US I'm sure anyone who reads the comments can attest to a strongly international presence that shows up. I feel that using a clearly pro-American logo not only incites the "I'm not an American" trolls (seriously do they want to make this a trollfest?) but also causes the perception that the politics being discussed are isolated from the rest of the world and people outside the US can neither affect nor are being affected by it, a perception which is extremely dangerous. Politics is a truly international affair, as a Canadian I can say that I'm much more scared by who might win the US election then by any of the candidates in my own, as well American's should be greatly interested by events all over the Middle East as well as what happens in the EU and China for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure what a good logo would be but clearly an American flag is highly improper for a wide variety of reasons.
Seriously, when are the editors going to wake up and stop letting this guy use /. as his personal marketing service. He's submitted almost 180 stories since December 2002, every one linking to his "technology blog" where he takes in money from the Ad impressions (I'm not linking to it for obvious reasons). Is he hoping to submit so many stories that he'll get a full time job? Maybe he want's to replace Jon Katz:) I don't mind a poster occationally pluggin their own site but not every couple days and don't try to sneak in your site at the end as some brilliant discussion that is crutial to read (without even specifically mentioning it's your site).
Interesting, 3 AC replies to your comment, all pro-Roland. Other pro-Roland comments I've seen in this story (admittedly I've only read a handful of comments below 3) 0. Now I'm not saying that at least one of these ACs is Roland... no wait, that's exactly what I'm saying!!
Unfortunately, it looks like they succeeded in their first round of 'turfing because they even got me to talk about them; however, they won't get me to say their name (I won't let them enter my consciousness just yet, even if they've planted seeds for my subconscious).
Well I won't say their name because I don't even remember it, not only did I not RTFA nor RTFS(ummary), but I didn't even RTFT(itle)!! Haha let's see you're astroturfing compete with my miniscule attention span, why I bet...
bored now, next story
Spelling however, is entirely optional.
the Recording Industry Association of America said his organization had not reviewed the software
Interestingly, the programmer is from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Out of the RIAA's jurisdiction.
When I looked at this point I felt there was something slightly disturbing about it but wasn't sure what it was, after a moment it clicked. The RIAA isn't a law enforcement agency, they don't have a jurisdiction!!!
How have we allowed a private organization to gain powers so great that we would confuse them with the police?
I work at Microsoft as a develop in the Windows team and I say you are full of it. You're friend has got his facts all wrong or you misunderstood him. No one here examines GPL code, we don't want it mingled in our proprietary code and there are policies against doing such a thing.
That's why those guys will never write a line of code for Microsoft. Microsoft is a very big company, they can definatly afford to hire a bunch of developers who have the sole purpose of trying to extrapolate their enemies next move and then patent it.
So don't, I'm guessing they won't really miss you anyways and if you don't want to go through the effort (somewhat nontrivial) of trying it out then don't. Then again what do you mean by "works"?
There are a lot of people using windows, most are not going to switch to linux anytime soon because for them windows "works", of course they still have all the trouble with spyware, viruses, no multiple desktops, etc, but they say it "works". Same with IE, they figure it "works" and don't even consider activeX wonkyness or tabbed browsing (don't know what SP2 has done for this). So at what point does your window manager "work"? When it compiles? When it has no bugs? When it has nothing you can point to from your dialy usage and say "that's a bug"? Maybe when annoying UI issues are gone? I figure the only way a program is ever truly done is if it does everything you've ever wanted it to do as simply and efficiently as possible. So if you want to put in the effort to see what you might be missing from your window manager that "works" go ahead and try it out. I can tell you that I'm certainly not going to try it out today (heck probably won't even RTFA) but sometime later when I have some time to spare, maybe days, maybe weeks, maybe never, who knows, I might just give it a whirl.
Honestly, is anybody surprised by this move? If there's one thing that history has taught us about George Lucas, it's that he has exactly one master - money.
If Lucas thinks that he can get money out of the frothing masses of geeks, then he'll do it. Hence, the DVDs to be released this fall, after saying that he would only release DVDs as a full 6-box set?
I honestly ask, is anybody surprised anymore?
Now I realize it's setting a bad precedent but sometimes these measures are necessary and the course of action is clear. Clearly Lucas is only doing this for the money so there is only one way to convince him to stop. We need to get together enough geeks to pay George Lucas to stop making Star Wars Movies.
Jerry Falwell's page is falwell.com, the page in question here is fallwell.com, it seems quite clear this is a deliberate attempt to bring in visitors who intended to visit falwell.com but made a fairly common misspelling, one which has been made numerous times in the comments though this is likely due in large part to people thinking that Fallwell was the correct spelling from the domain name in question.
What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.
I have a better reason than that. The fact that I don't think I'm completely unique. I feel that there is only a finite set of factors at work when I vote and a finite set of reactions, some specific to me, but many applicable to others as well, as well there are a lot of people, lets refer to them as my voting group, who respond very much the same way to these factors as I do. Therefore if there are enough factors to make me vote for party X then there are enough factors to make my voting group to vote for party X as well. In fact by the very fact I decide to vote for party X in a way I am affirming that these factors are enough to make me, and thus my voting group that to vote for party X as well. As a result I now have not only one vote but dozens, perhaps hundreds, a lot more influencial. Sure my logic is a little fuzzy but it's a great motivation to vote!
'Although the state's right to take all necessary measures that it deems necessary is recognized, there is fear that these measures will have a negative impact on basic human rights.'"
WTF?
Constitutional Amendment 28:
"The state shall have the right to take all necessary measures that it deems necessary."
A very good point, the Greeks are merely using the powers granted to them by the US Constitution...
We didn't have a revolution, but still have at least the promise of decent Olympics coverage. That's the theory, anyway: the last couple of times have been dominated by talking heads, cutesy "background" spots (especially the Sydney Olympics), and general chatter about almost everything but sports.
Agreed, they spend far too little time on the actual sports. Though it can be worse, a couple times I saw what was supposedly coverage of the Hawaii Ironman. You could barely tell there was a race going on, they gave some bizarre broken up profiles of the athletes interlaced with the occasional ten second shot of the race. The only reason I had watched the second broadcast is I assumed that the first was a horrendously long intro sequence.
They also had a nasty habit of telling us that Canadians placed 5th, 10th and 21st, but never told who actually won.
Must disagree there, the one thing that impressed me was how much they covered international athletes. A depressingly large number of the events that they covered didn't have a single Canadian in them at all, and when they did the top athletes got just as much, usually more if the Canadian wasn't in real contention, coverage. Of course the profiles were predominantly Canadian but I was impressed that the coverage dealt more with the race rather than the couple racers with a maple leaf. I can't really recall if the winners were mentioned when the Canadians results were given but I do recall that they did it on a score board where they would go through the pages. Thus if a Canadian came along they would be mentioned. I would also note that these were fringe sports which they wouldn't of covered otherwise, while it doesn't excuse them ignoring the winners it does explain why (they weren't the reason for the info in the first place).
IIRC, icravetv.com used a zip code based system to identify their "legal" (canadian) users from their "illegal" (american) users. Type in a Canadian zip code and off you go.
That's a pretty good idea, if you type in a Canadian zip code then off you go, off their site that is since there's no such thing as a Canadian zip code.
What I tried to say, was "Don't forget one of the most agressive advertisers in time, X10", but the spontanity is somewhat gone now.
:)
Oh well.
Don't worry about it, reading at +4 and not seeing the parent all I saw was,
Re:3rd worst servers in existence ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't one of the most aggresive advertisers in time, X10.
Spent several seconds trying to figgure out what everyone was finding so informative about that comment before I gave up and read your follow-up
Does 'Vince" truly exist?
/.ing so well?!?
Is the attrocious grammar, spelling, and sentence structure merely due to poor linguistic skills or is he trying to draw sympathy by protraying himself as a fairly unintelligent person that was taken advantage of?
If his name is Sam Wise (yeah like that sounds real) then why is his comcast page mich617?
But perhaps the most puzzling question of all,
How in the heck is his page standing up to a
I think there's more to this fellow than meets the eye...
It's like somebody is stealing your bike just to take it for a service.
Would you like that?
On the contrary it's like someone seeing your house is being robbed (or at least broken into) then breaking in themselves to kick out the intruders then fixing the lock on that window. Now you just have to hope that this good samaratan is trustworthy once they get inside, and also that they're smart enough to only go into your house if it's being invaded and they're not just check everyones house for a bad window latch and making a big nuisance.
Would you like that?
I've come to the conclusion that until the RIAA makes some serious changes in the way they treat their artists and their customers I won't buy a thing from them. Does this mean I'm giving up music?
No, though it does mean I won't be buying some of my favorite artists. It also means I need to find some new ones and the place I've been looking is Magnatunes, they're true to their slogan, "We are not Evil", and have a fairly large selection of artists, not all of them are my taste but then again I don't like a lot of big label artists either. You're probably not going to find a Paul Simon or The Beatles here but I've found some nice music. No harm in checking out of course, no harm worrying that you'll buy an album that you won't like. You see all their music is available for listening right on their website so you can listen to a particular album as many times as you want before buying (in a good but lossy format though), then if you decide you want to buy you get to pay anywhere from $5-$18 US, the artist gets half of course. Of course you're wondering if people will actually buy when they can get the music whenever they want for free? Well I've bought two albums already and am quite close to buying a third. Go ahead RIAA, make as much trouble as you want, I don't need you anymore, whine until you end up on the street with the other crackheads, I'll be helping the good guys.
One thing for sure is that Sveasoft is violating the spirit of the GPL. Specifically through
A) Charging $50 for access to the source
and
B) Marking the binaries then cancelling the subscription of redistributers
Now to the legal stuff (btw IANAL),
as to Sveasoft's claims that the people who redistributed the binaries were violating the GPL they may be correct unless the redistributors offered, for $50, to order the CD with source from Sveasoft. Assuming their subscription wasn't cancelled (which it was), though they could also offer to work through someone with a working subscription. Still if they had not followed these steps they would be in technical violation of the GPL. Or of course they could just supply the info on how to get the source from Sveasoft (eg subscribe & pay up) under GPL section 3. c
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Now if Sveasoft is violating the GPL and they passed on his offer then I can't really say if they are violating. Regardless I suspect the redistributors did none of these things and are infact violating the GPL.
As to whether Sveasoft is violating the GPL. We'll look at A. This might be allowable (a loophole in the GPL), if for each request he goes, takes a CD, throws it in the burner and burns it himself (charging of course for his time along with the physical medium). As to B, the cancelling subscriptions of redistributors, this is apparently allowed (FSF says so). However there's also this little bit from the summary,
Sveasoft is also ending the subscriptions (but refunding their money) of people who have posted their MD5 sums of the binaries. It says nowhere in the subscriber contract that they can't do this.
If Sveasoft is in fact doing this, and if the source CD is only available to subscribers (which it appears to be) then these people are having their access to the source revoked without reason. That being said I'm not sure if that's just a contract violation or a GPL violation too.
Wait don't go away yet, I'm not quite done with B. I didn't actually see the FSF response however I suspect they ignored or didn't know something and that B may still lead to a GPL violation in another way. The very fact that they cancelled anyones subscription, before a period of three years after recieving the binary, likely violates the GPL by section 3.b
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
I don't see anything there about revoke rights to the source to someone who you've distributed the binary to (ie the cancelled subscription), these people had a right to obtain the source code, even if it cost $50, for a period of three years. Cancelling their subscriptions has cut the period short and in doing so should violate the GPL. He could possibly claim they cuold just resubscribe but I fail to see how this is a "cost of physically performing source distribution", besides if they ask to resubscribe and he refuses them then it's a violation for sure.
Thus given my understanding of the situation and the GPL I believe he is violating the GPL.
Would that make SCO the "Santa Claus Operation"?
But wait, what about Linus' quote...
"Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus."
So SCO owns Linux after all!!
Any advice for the poor schmuck who's going to get the blame?
;)
Well my first advice is to come clean, yes I mean you theodp, I think we all know who this poor schmuck is
If there's a class-action lawsuit, I will take the proceeds and dump it right back to Redhat, in the form of subscriptions or straight donations.
IANAL but don't you have to join a classaction lawsuit to get any money? Furthermore wouldn't the proceeds of a sucessful lawsuit be increased by you joining (ie value of your shares)? It seems to me for you to join the lawsuit and then donating the money back to Redhat you would in fact just be giving some of Redhat's (and yours since you own stock) money to that sleaseball lawyer.