The ability to use copyrighted works after their copyright has expired. OK, technically this hasn't been taken away -- just the expiration extended (indefinitely). I should by now be able to use the Mickey Mouse likeness without paying Disney a dime. I should be able to repoduce copies of "The Thin Man" movie. But, I can't.
Copyrights were never intended to provide a monopoly on works forever. See Lawrence Lessig's book for a better explaination than I could ever hope to muster.
Can anyone, viewing a hummingbird in action and knowing that all its hundreds of organs are packed inside something the size of a marble, believe the myth that, way back, it originated when a lightning bolt hit some dirty seawater?
I'm having problems finding exactly where in Darwin's Origin of Species this claim is made? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Or is this just another creationist strawman?
There's a good chance that all of you are just figments of my imagination. I have a theory, however, that you all actually exist. Just to be safe though would you mind placing this sticker on your foreheads? Thanks.
There are so many things Microsoft needs to be concentrating on... Instead, they give us this crap.
But it's not intended for you! It's intended for those that have never used a computer before. And in particular, for those user's in areas of the world where technology is just now becoming common place. This is simply a way for Microsoft to expand its market. Something that every business needs to be concerned with.
Maybe Microsoft will use the extra cash inflow to address the issues that you are concerned with. (But most likely, not).
At first I read the summary as:
this will bring the cost of the XPC system down to $130.00.
I was excited at first, but then I realized that I misread it... I still have hope that I'll be able to get a small form factor PC for a reasonable price. Not today, I guess.
BTW, I remembered the option for something like "automatically download rights management software" when installating Windows Media Player, what, 10 is it now? I hesitantly clicked yes. Now that I've done so, I can't find an option inside of the program to say no. Odd.
Try Tools|Options|Privacy.
You should see a check box for "Acquire licenses automatically for protected comment". Uncheck it, click OK and you should be golden.
This idea of number of lines seems like an odd/arbitrary metric to me. I took a look at MoleSter and I am impressed with its conciseness. But 9 lines seems somewhat arbitrary, as the lines are simply packed and reformated to fit in a certain width.
It seems to me that number of statements would be a better metric (semi-colons in perl?). For MoleSter this would be about 25 statements (without punishing for subroutines). This method has the advantage of not punishing for using longer variable/function names.
Of course, it is always debatable exactly what constitutes a statement in each particular language.
Most people who learn English as a second language tend to have a very good command of its written form...
That has not been my experience. I often have to spend extra time trying to figure out exactly what my non-native English speaking colleagues are trying to say. I fear the problem will only get worse as out-sourcing increases.
Note that this is not a knock against the ESL'ers. Growing up in the wonderful US school system, I can count the number of languages that I speak fluently on my index finger. I admire anyone that can function in multiple languages (even if marginally).
You raise interesting points. True, it is the legislature's job to choose electors. But they do this based on the vote of the populace (technically, I'm not sure that they are required to do so -- but ignoring the vote would really piss off the voters).
My understanding is that the FL supreme court was attempting to ensure an accurate voter count for the legislature to base its decision on. The US supreme court, however, said that the recount was not fairly applied across the state and would result in unfair representation. To my mind this is BS, as the use of different voting methods (punch, butterfly, etc.) already introduced an unfairness. In any case, IMHO, the US supreme court had no right to intervene in a state's decision (unless it was willing to declare the whole FL election unconstitutional -- triggering a "do over"?).
This is the United States of America. Our founding fathers believed very highly in maintaining some independence of states and the electorial college reflects this. The president is elected by the states (as voted by their citizens). This is what the founders intended (and why the 2000 supreme court decision in Gore vs. Bush was sooo wrong -- but I digress).
Now, there were only thirteen states when the constitution was inacted and now we have fifty. Plus they did not have the instantaneous communications that we have now. So, one could argue that the country (and the world) is a totally different place now and it is time to change the way we elect our president. Just understand that in doing so we are changing a significant force behind the constitution (that of state's rights). I recommend extreme caution in proceeding down that road.
Of course I've experienced the sorts of "coincidences" that you describe. Because they are rare and unexpected, we remember them. We forget all the times we answer the phone and it's not the person we expected it to be.
The mind is an incredible thing. It's able to pick up on subtle things that seem like there is not enough information for. But I think that all these events are best explained by subtle clues and coincidence rather than some yet unknown means of communication through the ether. The former allows me to keep my present view of the universe, while the later requires me to radically change it. Of course, if enough evidence is presented for the later, then I will be forced to change my views (eventually).
But i agree with you that psychic phenomena should not be rejected outright, based on present day's scientific dogma.
There is no scientific dogma! That's the whole point of science! Theories are proven, improved upon or rejected. Sure sometimes it takes time to let go of our long held beliefs, but if a new theory better describes the world around us, then we have no choice but to embrace it.
As far as paranormal/psychic phenomena are concerned, the evidence has yet to be presented. I hold out little belief that it every will, but hey prove me wrong and I will change my opinion. The scientific method demands it of me.
Slashdot Mirror
What right has been taken away from you?
The ability to use copyrighted works after their copyright has expired. OK, technically this hasn't been taken away -- just the expiration extended (indefinitely). I should by now be able to use the Mickey Mouse likeness without paying Disney a dime. I should be able to repoduce copies of "The Thin Man" movie. But, I can't.
Copyrights were never intended to provide a monopoly on works forever. See Lawrence Lessig's book for a better explaination than I could ever hope to muster.
I'd disagreee with the majority of these posts... evolution is a fact. Species do in fact change over time.
Natural selection is the theory that suggests how evolution occurs.
In checking out the site in the parent post, I ran across this interesting comment:
Can anyone, viewing a hummingbird in action and knowing that all its hundreds of organs are packed inside something the size of a marble, believe the myth that, way back, it originated when a lightning bolt hit some dirty seawater?
I'm having problems finding exactly where in Darwin's Origin of Species this claim is made? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Or is this just another creationist strawman?
There's a good chance that all of you are just figments of my imagination. I have a theory, however, that you all actually exist. Just to be safe though would you mind placing this sticker on your foreheads? Thanks.
There are so many things Microsoft needs to be concentrating on... Instead, they give us this crap.
But it's not intended for you! It's intended for those that have never used a computer before. And in particular, for those user's in areas of the world where technology is just now becoming common place. This is simply a way for Microsoft to expand its market. Something that every business needs to be concerned with.
Maybe Microsoft will use the extra cash inflow to address the issues that you are concerned with. (But most likely, not).
...how is it that this is related to my rights online...
Oh. I thought YRO stood for "Your Rights On-Hold!
I don't normally stoop to Microsoft Bashing, but security vulnerabilities in icons and cursors?!?!?
I can always use Microsoft AntiSpyware to fix the problem! Right?
At first I read the summary as: this will bring the cost of the XPC system down to $130.00.
I was excited at first, but then I realized that I misread it... I still have hope that I'll be able to get a small form factor PC for a reasonable price. Not today, I guess.
Nerds.
I know nerds when I see them, and this ain't no nerd! Oo-la-la. I love Vegas.
Perhaps God is indifferent?
Or perhaps He/She is just really really pissed! That would explain a lot.
BTW, I remembered the option for something like "automatically download rights management software" when installating Windows Media Player, what, 10 is it now? I hesitantly clicked yes. Now that I've done so, I can't find an option inside of the program to say no. Odd.
Try Tools|Options|Privacy.
You should see a check box for "Acquire licenses automatically for protected comment". Uncheck it, click OK and you should be golden.
it's meant to be a replacement for MS Paint
What's wrong with MS Paint?
OK, OK, I could save ourselves all a lot of time if I could mod myself (-1) Troll... but I can't.
I think I speak for the entire slashdot community when I say:
Jeri, will you marry me?
This idea of number of lines seems like an odd/arbitrary metric to me. I took a look at MoleSter and I am impressed with its conciseness. But 9 lines seems somewhat arbitrary, as the lines are simply packed and reformated to fit in a certain width.
It seems to me that number of statements would be a better metric (semi-colons in perl?). For MoleSter this would be about 25 statements (without punishing for subroutines). This method has the advantage of not punishing for using longer variable/function names.
Of course, it is always debatable exactly what constitutes a statement in each particular language.
users are the admins of their machines.
But are they masters of their domain?
I suspect not.
You know what they say... invest in real estate, because they ain't making any more of it.
Oh... wait.
The one thing I'd like to see is a spelchkr and grammer checkar build right into the browser.
One the one hand, it is useful to see the author's original use of grammar so as to prejudice your opnion of them.
...if that new person's key was signed by Alice, whose key was signed by Charlie, whose key was signed by Bob, whose key was signed by you...
If you go back far enough, I think you'll find that the key was also signed by Kevin Bacon.
Presenting the tools to a user to allow them to infringe on somebodys copyrights: Legal
Have you heard of the DMCA? You may wish to take a look at this article. In paricular:
[The DMCA o]utlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
Sad but true.
Most people who learn English as a second language tend to have a very good command of its written form...
That has not been my experience. I often have to spend extra time trying to figure out exactly what my non-native English speaking colleagues are trying to say. I fear the problem will only get worse as out-sourcing increases.
Note that this is not a knock against the ESL'ers. Growing up in the wonderful US school system, I can count the number of languages that I speak fluently on my index finger. I admire anyone that can function in multiple languages (even if marginally).
If the subject DOESN'T cast a shadow, then the camera won't work.
Making it totally worthless for taking pictures of vampires. Damn.
You raise interesting points. True, it is the legislature's job to choose electors. But they do this based on the vote of the populace (technically, I'm not sure that they are required to do so -- but ignoring the vote would really piss off the voters).
My understanding is that the FL supreme court was attempting to ensure an accurate voter count for the legislature to base its decision on. The US supreme court, however, said that the recount was not fairly applied across the state and would result in unfair representation. To my mind this is BS, as the use of different voting methods (punch, butterfly, etc.) already introduced an unfairness. In any case, IMHO, the US supreme court had no right to intervene in a state's decision (unless it was willing to declare the whole FL election unconstitutional -- triggering a "do over"?).
The electoral college needs to be abolished.
This is the United States of America. Our founding fathers believed very highly in maintaining some independence of states and the electorial college reflects this. The president is elected by the states (as voted by their citizens). This is what the founders intended (and why the 2000 supreme court decision in Gore vs. Bush was sooo wrong -- but I digress).
Now, there were only thirteen states when the constitution was inacted and now we have fifty. Plus they did not have the instantaneous communications that we have now. So, one could argue that the country (and the world) is a totally different place now and it is time to change the way we elect our president. Just understand that in doing so we are changing a significant force behind the constitution (that of state's rights). I recommend extreme caution in proceeding down that road.
Of course I've experienced the sorts of "coincidences" that you describe. Because they are rare and unexpected, we remember them. We forget all the times we answer the phone and it's not the person we expected it to be.
The mind is an incredible thing. It's able to pick up on subtle things that seem like there is not enough information for. But I think that all these events are best explained by subtle clues and coincidence rather than some yet unknown means of communication through the ether. The former allows me to keep my present view of the universe, while the later requires me to radically change it. Of course, if enough evidence is presented for the later, then I will be forced to change my views (eventually).
But i agree with you that psychic phenomena should not be rejected outright, based on present day's scientific dogma.
There is no scientific dogma! That's the whole point of science! Theories are proven, improved upon or rejected. Sure sometimes it takes time to let go of our long held beliefs, but if a new theory better describes the world around us, then we have no choice but to embrace it.
As far as paranormal/psychic phenomena are concerned, the evidence has yet to be presented. I hold out little belief that it every will, but hey prove me wrong and I will change my opinion. The scientific method demands it of me.