Stores don't care about catching shoplifters, they care about stopping shoplifters. Obviously, one way to do that is to catch alot of them, but "secret" deterrents aren't real helpful.
Fundies are brainless no matter what religion they follow. In fact, one of the key definitions of a fundie is that they don't think for themselves, but rather let other people or books think for them. Intelligent, normal people who happen to be Christian need not be offended by Fundie-baiting.
In what way does DRM contribute to society? In what ways will it be a hindrance?
Just as an aside, I'd like to point out that your principles with regards to DRM are exactly the opposite of your principles with regards to war on Iraq. Maybe you should do some more thinking.
Stranger things have happened. Some people know the difference between fantasy and reality. Granted, the kind of person who does is not likely to get enormously bent out of shape by a training program, when theres lots more legitimate things to get bent out of shape over.
You work at an office small enough that users can walk right up to the programmers and bother them, but not informal enough that you can wear headphones? Sucky.
If we're going to judge everything by what COULD have been accomplished while you were doing it, then nobody on earth would be a usefull human. You could be healing lepers or curing cancer or something right now. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with drinking, any more than there is with any other form of entertainment.
Look, I don't think a war with Iraq would require a draft either, nor that it would without generous warning. But the proof is not what they probably will do, or what they say they will do, but what they CAN do. The draft CAN be re-instated at any time, with no warning. People who can't vote CAN be drafted. People who can't drink CAN be drafted. Thats stupid and hypocritical.
A war with North Korea, btw, would have every possibility of requiring the draft, just like the first Korean war did.
I'm posting this on Friday night. I could be drafted Monday morning. That fact that it's not active has NOTHING to do with the point, which is that we can and will draft people who can't vote. And the draft age can be lowered at any time as well.
Okay, lets line all the straw men up in little lines. Drunk riots aren't an issue here, they're usually people above the age of majority and don't have alot to do with drinking, because they grow out of emotional events, like soccer or celebrations or concerts. The President, not Congress, has the power to start up the draft, and can do it whenever he wants, and will do it if we need bodies for a war. We haven't needed bodies, so it hasn't been activated. That's not really relevent to the point, which is that if you're going to reserver the right to tell someone he has to kill and die for his country, then he damn well should have a say in policy, which means voting.
Now - the allure of the forbidden is a major reason for underage drinking. That's just a basic fact, it's not really disputable. Here's some of the reasons legalization makes sense, while it doesn't make sense to legalize murder, just in case you really are too damn stupid to see the differences.
A) Drinking is a victimless crime. Yes, I know about drunk driving and all that. Doesn't matter - getting drunk does not involve causing harm to anyone.
B) There is a very small social stigma associated with drinking. The major force of law is NOT it's very existence, but rather the social pressure to obey a law. When a law isn't respected by society (drinking, underage smoking, mild drug use, jaywalking, certain types of white collar crime), it's much easier break it because of other pressures, like experimenting or greed or peer pressure. People absolutely drink and do drugs because it's illegal. They do it for the same reason they get tattoos and piercings and funky haircuts. It's an easy, mostly harmless way of rebelling when you're at an age when it's very important to do so.
You need to educate yourself a bit about the draft and how it works. It's not currently active. It can become active, which is to say they can send out notices, in less than 48 hours. Since it's not active, there's no "draft age" per se, but it has been in the past, and can be in the future, as low as 16 - at the whim of the President. On the other side, I don't give a shit how many teens kill people driving drunk - for one thing, you'll have alot less of it if it's legal. If someone is old enough to vote, they're old enough to drink. Period. Raise the voting age to 21 or lower the drinking age to 18. It's not a tough call at all.
The thing that pisses me off the most is that we'll draft people who can't vote. That's just fucked up. And you can vote, but not drink. In my mind, there shouldn't be any age limits on anything that are greater than the age of majority - it just doesn't make any logical sense. Especially since the only things I can think of are alcohol and running for public office, neither or which are nearly as important or as life-changing as all the other things you can do at 18.
It's concurrent versioning, not just a resource tag. You still can only have one funkydll.dll in your system32 directory. You need either a name-based versioning (like linux and many 3rd pary libraries use), which would sadly break older apps, or you need to pull some funky tricks to allow older apps to still work (maybe) while allowing versioning as you go forward. The article would be about this funky trick.
add funkydll.lib to your linker settings (some header files do this for you, with VC++ pragmas)
Profit! (no, not really)
Call functions in the DLL. It's pretty straightforward to use them. If you want to dynamically load and unload them, you need to know about LoadLibray and UnloadLibrary, but they to are easy to use.
Writing them is a little trickier, but not much, at least for simple cases - there's some interesting things like shared regions and stuff, but most of the time you just write your code as normal, prefixing it with a macro like DLLFUNCTION that expands to either dllimport or dllexport (based on whether you're building the library or using it), compile, and you're done.
Well, it works, except when you change minor JVM versions, or use a different JVM vendor. Every Java server app we have comes with installs it's own JVM and jrun and won't work with the others. Woo.
Unless the "unique id" is encrypted, both in the DLL and in the executable, and in the file system, with keys you can't recover, then it will still be possible to replace DLLs with modifed versions. It'll just be awkward enough that it (probably) won't happen as part of a program install.
If I were going to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that they either scanned the source, and are therefore almost certainly under an NDA, or they scanned the binary and therefore fall afoul of the EULA which (probably) says they aren't allowed to publish benchmark results.
Translation: The Internet has spread expanded and been encouraged, and ICANN has no doubt helped, but at the same time it's enormous fuckups have engendered massive ill-will in the Internet community.
It's very true that one of the original ideas of capitalism is that you'd find out what people want and give it to them. However, much like with democracy (where, again, you find out what people want and give it to them), some bright young fellas figured out that it's actually much more cost effective simply control what people have access to, and then make your product the most appealing. How many times have you gone out to buy a product and been able to get exactly what you wanted, no ifs ands or buts?
Probably not to steal MP3s, no. But maybe your right to distribute and sell your own work, to innovate and create without massive corporate interference should you ever become successfull, to have access to the free flow of information - these are all important things, and they are the things that're threatened by the over-reaching and broken IP laws we have today.
Besides, it's easy to look at the past and say, "this was important, this was the turning point". It's not so easy to look toward the future that way. In the 50s, there was probably less support for the civil rights movement that there is today for rethinking patent and copyright law.
If you have a non-shaped asynchronous connection, like most forms of DSL and cable, it's pretty easy to cap out your upstream. When you do that, your downstream goes through the floor because your ACKs don't get through. This just says that if your routers prioritize ACKs, your downstream will still be fine even if your upstream is saturated. This isn't exactly new, my cable ISP already does this.
Nah, 10 grand is enough for a limo, a tux, and 2 escorts. For one night. Barely. It's at least a little more plausible than the idea that drinking a certain type of beer gets you the limo and the hookers.
You know, there's alot of very smart people out there who would tell that it's your moral duty to not stand for bad laws, even if they are the law of the land. People kinda like the founding fathers, or civil rights activists, or suffragettes. Just saying "oh, it's a law, and it'd be wrong to break it, no matter how stupid and/or immoral the law is" is placing your head in the sand. Even worse, it's delegating your moral character to a comittee, and not even a comittee that relates to you. I'll quote JFK here. "We have a right to expect that the negro community will respect the law. But they have the right to expect that the law will be fair."
The quote stands for any instance. Rejection of unjust law is one of the ways changes get made - and since there's little or no direct responsibility from lawmakers (a flaw in our system thats gotten worse over time), direct action is one of the few ways to make major changes.
I had a sales rep finally use "drink the Kool-aid" in a meeting last week. If it weren't for the fact that he'd brought some really smart tech people to the meeting, I would have leaped over the table and stabbed him to death with a letter opener.
Slashdot Mirror
Stores don't care about catching shoplifters, they care about stopping shoplifters. Obviously, one way to do that is to catch alot of them, but "secret" deterrents aren't real helpful.
Fundies are brainless no matter what religion they follow. In fact, one of the key definitions of a fundie is that they don't think for themselves, but rather let other people or books think for them. Intelligent, normal people who happen to be Christian need not be offended by Fundie-baiting.
Just as an aside, I'd like to point out that your principles with regards to DRM are exactly the opposite of your principles with regards to war on Iraq. Maybe you should do some more thinking.
Stranger things have happened. Some people know the difference between fantasy and reality. Granted, the kind of person who does is not likely to get enormously bent out of shape by a training program, when theres lots more legitimate things to get bent out of shape over.
If you're a pacifist, then making tools to trains soldiers would be nefarious. Try to keep up.
You work at an office small enough that users can walk right up to the programmers and bother them, but not informal enough that you can wear headphones? Sucky.
If we're going to judge everything by what COULD have been accomplished while you were doing it, then nobody on earth would be a usefull human. You could be healing lepers or curing cancer or something right now. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with drinking, any more than there is with any other form of entertainment.
A war with North Korea, btw, would have every possibility of requiring the draft, just like the first Korean war did.
I'm posting this on Friday night. I could be drafted Monday morning. That fact that it's not active has NOTHING to do with the point, which is that we can and will draft people who can't vote. And the draft age can be lowered at any time as well.
Now - the allure of the forbidden is a major reason for underage drinking. That's just a basic fact, it's not really disputable. Here's some of the reasons legalization makes sense, while it doesn't make sense to legalize murder, just in case you really are too damn stupid to see the differences.
A) Drinking is a victimless crime. Yes, I know about drunk driving and all that. Doesn't matter - getting drunk does not involve causing harm to anyone.
B) There is a very small social stigma associated with drinking. The major force of law is NOT it's very existence, but rather the social pressure to obey a law. When a law isn't respected by society (drinking, underage smoking, mild drug use, jaywalking, certain types of white collar crime), it's much easier break it because of other pressures, like experimenting or greed or peer pressure. People absolutely drink and do drugs because it's illegal. They do it for the same reason they get tattoos and piercings and funky haircuts. It's an easy, mostly harmless way of rebelling when you're at an age when it's very important to do so.
You need to educate yourself a bit about the draft and how it works. It's not currently active. It can become active, which is to say they can send out notices, in less than 48 hours. Since it's not active, there's no "draft age" per se, but it has been in the past, and can be in the future, as low as 16 - at the whim of the President. On the other side, I don't give a shit how many teens kill people driving drunk - for one thing, you'll have alot less of it if it's legal. If someone is old enough to vote, they're old enough to drink. Period. Raise the voting age to 21 or lower the drinking age to 18. It's not a tough call at all.
The thing that pisses me off the most is that we'll draft people who can't vote. That's just fucked up. And you can vote, but not drink. In my mind, there shouldn't be any age limits on anything that are greater than the age of majority - it just doesn't make any logical sense. Especially since the only things I can think of are alcohol and running for public office, neither or which are nearly as important or as life-changing as all the other things you can do at 18.
It's concurrent versioning, not just a resource tag. You still can only have one funkydll.dll in your system32 directory. You need either a name-based versioning (like linux and many 3rd pary libraries use), which would sadly break older apps, or you need to pull some funky tricks to allow older apps to still work (maybe) while allowing versioning as you go forward. The article would be about this funky trick.
add funkydll.lib to your linker settings (some header files do this for you, with VC++ pragmas)
Profit! (no, not really)
Call functions in the DLL. It's pretty straightforward to use them. If you want to dynamically load and unload them, you need to know about LoadLibray and UnloadLibrary, but they to are easy to use.
Writing them is a little trickier, but not much, at least for simple cases - there's some interesting things like shared regions and stuff, but most of the time you just write your code as normal, prefixing it with a macro like DLLFUNCTION that expands to either dllimport or dllexport (based on whether you're building the library or using it), compile, and you're done.
Well, it works, except when you change minor JVM versions, or use a different JVM vendor. Every Java server app we have comes with installs it's own JVM and jrun and won't work with the others. Woo.
Unless the "unique id" is encrypted, both in the DLL and in the executable, and in the file system, with keys you can't recover, then it will still be possible to replace DLLs with modifed versions. It'll just be awkward enough that it (probably) won't happen as part of a program install.
If I were going to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that they either scanned the source, and are therefore almost certainly under an NDA, or they scanned the binary and therefore fall afoul of the EULA which (probably) says they aren't allowed to publish benchmark results.
Translation: The Internet has spread expanded and been encouraged, and ICANN has no doubt helped, but at the same time it's enormous fuckups have engendered massive ill-will in the Internet community.
It's very true that one of the original ideas of capitalism is that you'd find out what people want and give it to them. However, much like with democracy (where, again, you find out what people want and give it to them), some bright young fellas figured out that it's actually much more cost effective simply control what people have access to, and then make your product the most appealing. How many times have you gone out to buy a product and been able to get exactly what you wanted, no ifs ands or buts?
Besides, it's easy to look at the past and say, "this was important, this was the turning point". It's not so easy to look toward the future that way. In the 50s, there was probably less support for the civil rights movement that there is today for rethinking patent and copyright law.
If you have a non-shaped asynchronous connection, like most forms of DSL and cable, it's pretty easy to cap out your upstream. When you do that, your downstream goes through the floor because your ACKs don't get through. This just says that if your routers prioritize ACKs, your downstream will still be fine even if your upstream is saturated. This isn't exactly new, my cable ISP already does this.
Nah, 10 grand is enough for a limo, a tux, and 2 escorts. For one night. Barely. It's at least a little more plausible than the idea that drinking a certain type of beer gets you the limo and the hookers.
The quote stands for any instance. Rejection of unjust law is one of the ways changes get made - and since there's little or no direct responsibility from lawmakers (a flaw in our system thats gotten worse over time), direct action is one of the few ways to make major changes.
I thought Java was the magic "never worry about memory because we have GC, hah hah, take that you C++ nerds" language?
I had a sales rep finally use "drink the Kool-aid" in a meeting last week. If it weren't for the fact that he'd brought some really smart tech people to the meeting, I would have leaped over the table and stabbed him to death with a letter opener.