Hmm know what I see happening? I'll come up with a metaphor to defeat yours, and then you'll come up with one to defeat mine, but we never come to agreeance. Heh.
What do ya say we chalk this one up as a draw instead of wasting energy in a futile effort?:)
I'd answer if your question didn't confuse me, heh.
Sony was doing something wrong with their exhibit. MS complained about it. Sony packed up and left (or at least that particular exhibit did). The headline on/. was "MS kicked Sony out of CeBit." An accurate headline would have been "Sony f'd up at CeBit, threw a temper tantrum, and left."
"every". Hardly. Just the ones you need to know about if you're supposed to be supporting the stuff.
That is total baloney. Every time there's a story that's even slightly embarrasing to MS, it gets published. I'll give you an example: Remember the headline 'Microsoft throws Sony out of Ce-Bit'?
Wanna know what really happened? Microsoft complained that Sony was violating trade-show rules (and they were), so Sony packed up and left. That's a bit of an oversimplification of what really happened, however the important point to note is that MS didn't throw anybody out of anything. Sony violated the rules. MS brought it up to management of the show. Sony left, as opposed to modifying their exhibit to comply with the same rules that every other exhibitor had to.
The story was published because it sounded like "oo oo, MS is picking on somebody!".
There is no filter that says 'do they need to know this?'. The filter is more like 'can we stir up more interest in Slashdot if we can play on the bias against them?'
Heh. I knew somebody was going to assume something like that.
Of course the firewall'd have per-phone (or outlet) options. It'd be simple enough to specify that your computer can only make local calls. Even better, you could only allow the phone #'s of your ISP.
Setting up your 'phone firewall' with the same rules for every single phone in your house is a bit on the absurd side. Give me a little credit, will ya?
Let me ask you this: What if a feature of the product (as opposed to a flaw) was exploited? Would MS be liable then? I don't think so. It'd be one thing if they didn't provide a patch. (I wouldn't think highly of anybody who didn't make at least an effort to address a problem like that)
On the other hand, there's no such thing as a product that couldn't be abused. Cars could be made with a capped top speed of 75 (which is practical), but they don't. I'm reasonably certain that there's never been a successful lawsuit against a car company because soembody died when they crashed at 100+ MPH.
To put it another way: Punish MS for this, and you'll open the door to punish a whole lotta companies for a similar deal. I'm not fond of MS, but I don't want that sequence of events to happen.
I'm also not fond of overreactive claims by somebody who clearly has a bloodlust against MS.
"He never mentioned anything about buying anything, nor did he say that he bought anything from MS"
I focused it at him so he'd understand. Remember Men in Black: "An individual is intelligent, groups of people are not."? I thought it was the best way to make him understand where the responsibility really is.
I don't know why you're bothered with my post, his was a knee-jerk 'Everything MS makes is bad so they should be punished' karma whoring reaction.
"... maybe it wouldn't work if they blocked the caller ID-ness"...
Personally, I'd set the firewall to block anonymous calls heh.
Okay, Im way off topic here, but I do have a question: a friend of mine had it set up to where you HAD to dial a *XX number to disable anonymous calling or the call wouldn't go through. Anybody know what that service is called?
Nobody held a gun to your head and made you buy anything. Why didn't you make informed decisions about your purchases? It's not like Slashdot doesn't report every single flaw in MS stuff.
"On point 3, several of the astronauts commented that stars were not visible to the naked eye during lunar day..."
I think the lack of stars proves that Nasa landed on the moon. I mean think about it: If Nasa was really making a TV stunt, they would have had a starry background. That's the way TV worked those days, you give people what they expect.
The 'hoax proof' is a rather comic read. They even had a version of it aired on FOX. Their 'expert photographer' knew absolutely nothing about how light works. That's pathetic. Somebody took some 'astronaut toys' and recreated the photos this guy panned. Heh it produced the same type of lighting.
There's a book called 'Light-Science & Magic' by Hunter and Fuqua that goes into detail about how light works with photography. It doesn't talk about the moon specifically, but it does show how areas of light cause interesting shadows. I can imagine most anybody visiting Slashdot enjoying that book for one reason or another. It really helps you appreciate the pictures Nasa was able to take of the moon.
"FBI Arrests 4 College Interns For Stealing Lunar Materials"
When I read this headline, the first image in my mind was of college kids building a rocket and 'stealing' lunar materials. I can see some MIT kids getting drunk and doing exactly that heh. As for the FBI getting involved: Anybody remember that Simpsons quote "The Moon belongs to America.":)
Funny, I don't see where he said that. I do see where the teacher treated him like crap, and he still went on to do well in life. What was he supposed to do? Hit him?
Grow up dude, you're serioulsy overreacting over something AC didn't say. That's a bit feminine if you ask me. Heh.
"If the record labels make a concerted effort to get their artists to educate the public about how downloading takes money directly out of the artists' pockets, things may change." This quote tells it all. "
Yep Yep. What bugs me about all this is that the Music Industry makes music look like it's free, then acts surprised when you find non RIAA ways of acquiring it. For example: Go to the store, buy a radio, turn it on. Result? Music. There was no registration form to fill out, no subscription to pay, not even a warning saying "FBI Warning: This music is not to be copied." What people thought they were buying when purchasing a CD was the convenience of hearing a song whenever they wanted, not a 'license'.
What would have happened if people bought FM cards for their machines and figured out how to rip MP3s off them, as opposed to CDs'? What would the argument be then?
It just bugs me that they make music seem as free as could be, then they wait until we all adopt the idea of MP3's to overreact to it. It almost makes me want to use the word 'entrapment'.
If I were a conspirist, I'd believe that the RIAA intentionally turned Napster into a justification to submit the SSSCA. I know that sounds silly, but they really could have handled this whole thing better. I mean jeez, why didn't they set up a site where you could donate money to the artists in order to make up for having MP3s you don't have the CD for?
...how many of the people that are actively not buying music are doing so because the RIAA called them a bunch of thieves? I certainly wouldn't have a guilty conscience about downloading music sans paying for it after that.
"And even if I hadn't said that, it would not change the fact that your idea was moronic.."
No, that was YOUR idea that was moronic. You made a bizarre assumption that I was suggesting recording 24 hours of footage per channel a day and editing commercials. When I went to explain myself you said "I didnt bother reading that."
Twist it any way you want, you could have gotten some interesting insight into how that could work if you had paid attention. The loss is yours, not mine. My ego is not bruised.
Slashdot Mirror
"You've never spent much time in Japan, have you?"
Umm... are you saying that the entire Slashdot community takes summer trips to Japan?
Ya might as well complete your thought. I can't believe I'm the only one that has never been there.
Hmm know what I see happening? I'll come up with a metaphor to defeat yours, and then you'll come up with one to defeat mine, but we never come to agreeance. Heh.
:)
What do ya say we chalk this one up as a draw instead of wasting energy in a futile effort?
I'd answer if your question didn't confuse me, heh.
/. was "MS kicked Sony out of CeBit." An accurate headline would have been "Sony f'd up at CeBit, threw a temper tantrum, and left."
Sony was doing something wrong with their exhibit. MS complained about it. Sony packed up and left (or at least that particular exhibit did). The headline on
heh thanks dude. Interesting read. :)
We may never see Mozilla 2.0. :(
"every". Hardly. Just the ones you need to know about if you're supposed to be supporting the stuff.
That is total baloney. Every time there's a story that's even slightly embarrasing to MS, it gets published. I'll give you an example: Remember the headline 'Microsoft throws Sony out of Ce-Bit'?
Wanna know what really happened? Microsoft complained that Sony was violating trade-show rules (and they were), so Sony packed up and left. That's a bit of an oversimplification of what really happened, however the important point to note is that MS didn't throw anybody out of anything. Sony violated the rules. MS brought it up to management of the show. Sony left, as opposed to modifying their exhibit to comply with the same rules that every other exhibitor had to.
The story was published because it sounded like "oo oo, MS is picking on somebody!".
There is no filter that says 'do they need to know this?'. The filter is more like 'can we stir up more interest in Slashdot if we can play on the bias against them?'
Heh. I knew somebody was going to assume something like that.
Of course the firewall'd have per-phone (or outlet) options. It'd be simple enough to specify that your computer can only make local calls. Even better, you could only allow the phone #'s of your ISP.
Setting up your 'phone firewall' with the same rules for every single phone in your house is a bit on the absurd side. Give me a little credit, will ya?
Let me ask you this: What if a feature of the product (as opposed to a flaw) was exploited? Would MS be liable then? I don't think so. It'd be one thing if they didn't provide a patch. (I wouldn't think highly of anybody who didn't make at least an effort to address a problem like that)
On the other hand, there's no such thing as a product that couldn't be abused. Cars could be made with a capped top speed of 75 (which is practical), but they don't. I'm reasonably certain that there's never been a successful lawsuit against a car company because soembody died when they crashed at 100+ MPH.
To put it another way: Punish MS for this, and you'll open the door to punish a whole lotta companies for a similar deal. I'm not fond of MS, but I don't want that sequence of events to happen.
I'm also not fond of overreactive claims by somebody who clearly has a bloodlust against MS.
Thank you! :)
*wonders why cell phones don't have the 'phone firewall' idea...*
"He never mentioned anything about buying anything, nor did he say that he bought anything from MS"
I focused it at him so he'd understand. Remember Men in Black: "An individual is intelligent, groups of people are not."? I thought it was the best way to make him understand where the responsibility really is.
I don't know why you're bothered with my post, his was a knee-jerk 'Everything MS makes is bad so they should be punished' karma whoring reaction.
"... maybe it wouldn't work if they blocked the caller ID-ness"...
Personally, I'd set the firewall to block anonymous calls heh.
Okay, Im way off topic here, but I do have a question: a friend of mine had it set up to where you HAD to dial a *XX number to disable anonymous calling or the call wouldn't go through. Anybody know what that service is called?
Nobody held a gun to your head and made you buy anything. Why didn't you make informed decisions about your purchases? It's not like Slashdot doesn't report every single flaw in MS stuff.
Well, if Microsoft presses charges, then it'll probably be 1 count for every computer they have whether it can run Windows or not.
Kinda makes you ache for a phone-firewall, doesn't it? Heh.
Hmm I could block 911 & telemarketers...
"I'm still running after I was launched in 1972."
Which is proof that he isn't solar powered.
"...and will take 2 million years to reach it. however it is slowing down by some "mysterious" force."
Hmm.. You know.. given the speed of light, and a few other factors.. there's a very real possibility we'll get this picture back from it.
"On point 3, several of the astronauts commented that stars were not visible to the naked eye during lunar day..."
I think the lack of stars proves that Nasa landed on the moon. I mean think about it: If Nasa was really making a TV stunt, they would have had a starry background. That's the way TV worked those days, you give people what they expect.
The 'hoax proof' is a rather comic read. They even had a version of it aired on FOX. Their 'expert photographer' knew absolutely nothing about how light works. That's pathetic. Somebody took some 'astronaut toys' and recreated the photos this guy panned. Heh it produced the same type of lighting.
There's a book called 'Light-Science & Magic' by Hunter and Fuqua that goes into detail about how light works with photography. It doesn't talk about the moon specifically, but it does show how areas of light cause interesting shadows. I can imagine most anybody visiting Slashdot enjoying that book for one reason or another. It really helps you appreciate the pictures Nasa was able to take of the moon.
"FBI Arrests 4 College Interns For Stealing Lunar Materials"
:)
When I read this headline, the first image in my mind was of college kids building a rocket and 'stealing' lunar materials. I can see some MIT kids getting drunk and doing exactly that heh. As for the FBI getting involved: Anybody remember that Simpsons quote "The Moon belongs to America."
ah! t'was fun. :)
Cheers!
Oh grow up dude. It's okay for the teacher to dunk him into the principal's office, but the dude one-ups his teacher and he's 'a shallow fuck'.
I hate people like you. "I'm going to call you names because I'm easily offended." Just like Kile's mom.
Go be a bitch somewhere else.
Funny, I don't see where he said that. I do see where the teacher treated him like crap, and he still went on to do well in life. What was he supposed to do? Hit him?
Grow up dude, you're serioulsy overreacting over something AC didn't say. That's a bit feminine if you ask me. Heh.
"If the record labels make a concerted effort to get their artists to educate the public about how downloading takes money directly out of the artists' pockets, things may change." This quote tells it all. "
Yep Yep. What bugs me about all this is that the Music Industry makes music look like it's free, then acts surprised when you find non RIAA ways of acquiring it. For example: Go to the store, buy a radio, turn it on. Result? Music. There was no registration form to fill out, no subscription to pay, not even a warning saying "FBI Warning: This music is not to be copied." What people thought they were buying when purchasing a CD was the convenience of hearing a song whenever they wanted, not a 'license'.
What would have happened if people bought FM cards for their machines and figured out how to rip MP3s off them, as opposed to CDs'? What would the argument be then?
It just bugs me that they make music seem as free as could be, then they wait until we all adopt the idea of MP3's to overreact to it. It almost makes me want to use the word 'entrapment'.
If I were a conspirist, I'd believe that the RIAA intentionally turned Napster into a justification to submit the SSSCA. I know that sounds silly, but they really could have handled this whole thing better. I mean jeez, why didn't they set up a site where you could donate money to the artists in order to make up for having MP3s you don't have the CD for?
... the Porn Industry is expected to hit a recession... heh :)
...how many of the people that are actively not buying music are doing so because the RIAA called them a bunch of thieves? I certainly wouldn't have a guilty conscience about downloading music sans paying for it after that.
"And even if I hadn't said that, it would not change the fact that your idea was moronic.."
No, that was YOUR idea that was moronic. You made a bizarre assumption that I was suggesting recording 24 hours of footage per channel a day and editing commercials. When I went to explain myself you said "I didnt bother reading that."
Twist it any way you want, you could have gotten some interesting insight into how that could work if you had paid attention. The loss is yours, not mine. My ego is not bruised.