That would imply that of all the names on the list, there is a probability that some do not belong. This isn't quite what the sentence says. What it actually says is that there are certain names on the list that most likely do not belong.
While I applaud the effort, I still think this could promote the false notion that they have to give permission in order for private home listeners to make backup copies for their own use. This is the real source of debate, whether or not I can copy the CD I own onto my own mix CD and let a friend borrow it.
The *AAs focus on the macro-scale because they know the argument is much more convincing if they try and say the average user is 'stealing' and 'distributing' to thousands of people. Instead, the average person is most likely willing to pay for a song if the price is right and the restrictions aren't too severe. iTunes seems to be doing fine, and the competitors are springing up.
He said, "It's not like you can read the source AND KNOW WHAT THE CLIENT'S PRIVATE DATA IS"
Using smaller words: Being able to read the source doesn't compromise the privacy of the system. This is in response to the claim that private data shouldn't be stored on open source systems.
Excellent point, whether or not someone paid for it, most ads on Google are really results, and usually pretty good ones.
Now if you aren't buying a product and you search for AMD, then yeah those links at the top are just banners, but they are clearly marked out of the way highlighted banners.
If you are BUYING an AMD though, the banners are a great place to start, as opposed to other banner ads, even on/. which have jack to do with jack. I'm looking at the news and seeing ads for Virtual Servers, that's completely unhelpful to most of us. Seeing ads for newegg when shopping for computer supplies is very relevant.
I don't think you are what most people are complaining about. I agree, if you burn your ALLOTTED bandwith at full speed most of the time, I should STILL be able to use my full speed when I need it. The ISP should account for YOUR bursts matching MY bursts.
When people start getting pissed is when your bursts are higher than they are allowed to be, causing your burst to block my bursts. If a neighborhood has a bunch of computer geeks, the correct response is for the ISP to allocate higher burst rates. However, if the neighborhood has a lot of uncappers, the correct response is to get the law involved or simply to terminate their contracts.
It's the whole "right to swing your fist" argument.
What you're missing is that evolving spammers from spam also fixes the problem.
The better the content filtering is, the more they have to adapt their marketing pitch to fit norms we can consider acceptable. The better the filters are the more they have to tailor their pitch. Eventually they are either sending email people want, or not sending email at all because their message can't get through.
The other part of this requires thought on your part and reading between the lines. Granted, Realnetworks DOES do their best to convince you to buy the the player, but they cite in their letter people who accidentally paid money for something they knew should be free.
This should indicate to you we are not dealing with someone savvy enough to ask for a non-microsoft alternative, especially when the non-microsoft alternative requires them to download a seperate product to avoid using the exact same microsoft product to beginning with. Keep in mind this is computer user who has already failed the "giving credit card number will result in charges" test for RealNetworks.
FYI -- See how long it takes YOU to find the free player. While I see the problem* it only takes reading the webpage for someone to figure it out. As a school teacher, I can unfortunately tell you that reading is one of the biggest problems we have in our society today.
*Problem: On the first page you click a link to go the player section, on the second page you click "Download Player" graphic button to continue, on third page the two graphic buttons are for paid player, while the free player is on the right side with a text link again.
Boy you are going to get the IP police on you about this one.
Downloading MP3's is NOT a federal crime, for very many reasons.
1) It pisses me off when people leave out the words "without distribution permission". I know why people do it, but the net result is it allows people to label an entire class of LEGAL activity as being shady. For example, absolutely nothing stops me from recording my wife singing, encoding it in the MP3 format, and sharing it. There are plenty of bands (insert rant about commercialized music and better alternatives) that have authorized distribution. MP3 != stolen
2) It's not a federal crime. It's a violated contract. These are civil court infractions, not federal violations.
3) The difference between a civil dispute and a federal crime is quite large. As in the difference between at most a fine and years of jail time.
The parent poster was absolutely right. People forget what a REAL crime it is and ruin their whole lives. You'd honestly be better off stealing a candy bar than forging a $5 to pay for it.
Filters use signatures to compare how likely something is to be spam. This is basically authorizing them to keep an actual copy of your work, then use that copy as a basis for comparison to see if something in the future is the same work.
Nice FUD. The argument is over whether it is possible to be healthy and still eat foods high in sugar or fat. The US position is that diet is dependent on lifestyle and thus occasional splurging is fine for a healthy person if they exercise to burn it off. This is perfectly rational.
The WHO basically ignored factoring in lifestyle, saying instead that certain diets were optimal for everyone. The WHO isn't wrong, they are just being overly stringent with their guidlines. The US prefers to emphasize that a healthy lifestyle can also be an enjoyable lifestyle.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Calories are Calories, the only difference is quantity.
The sad part is I was going to suggest that an American interracial mission would probably get more support, and even before I finished typing it in, I realized that the headline wouldn't be:
Doesn't even NEED devices attached. Run this through an Xray machine and pray you have your receipt and owners manual with you when they are trying to figure out why your jacket is wired up like a Christmas tree.
Google has relatively unbiased news. Unbiased in the sense that they don't promote any particular bias themselves, instead providing you with access to as much different bias as you'd desire. It may be more along the lines of the "fairness is treating EVERYONE like crap" logic, but it does give an interesting spectrum at times.
In addition, there are very real reasons to want to avoid using a pencil, not the least of which is what do with the shavings as well any snapped points floating around the capsule.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry the sentence doesn't resolve that way.
That would imply that of all the names on the list, there is a probability that some do not belong. This isn't quite what the sentence says. What it actually says is that there are certain names on the list that most likely do not belong.
That's "giving" as in hepatitis not "giving" as in Christmas.
Sure this one is just a splash screen and a blue screen, used interchangeably.
While I applaud the effort, I still think this could promote the false notion that they have to give permission in order for private home listeners to make backup copies for their own use. This is the real source of debate, whether or not I can copy the CD I own onto my own mix CD and let a friend borrow it.
The *AAs focus on the macro-scale because they know the argument is much more convincing if they try and say the average user is 'stealing' and 'distributing' to thousands of people. Instead, the average person is most likely willing to pay for a song if the price is right and the restrictions aren't too severe. iTunes seems to be doing fine, and the competitors are springing up.
Read the whole sentence.
He said, "It's not like you can read the source AND KNOW WHAT THE CLIENT'S PRIVATE DATA IS"
Using smaller words: Being able to read the source doesn't compromise the privacy of the system. This is in response to the claim that private data shouldn't be stored on open source systems.
Not dyslexia, wrong.
Acceptable: use when you have to.
Better: use when forced. (Dangling participle and all)
Actually, what with me not being a rocket scientist and all, the distance isn't as small as I would have assumed.
Excellent point, whether or not someone paid for it, most ads on Google are really results, and usually pretty good ones.
/. which have jack to do with jack. I'm looking at the news and seeing ads for Virtual Servers, that's completely unhelpful to most of us. Seeing ads for newegg when shopping for computer supplies is very relevant.
Now if you aren't buying a product and you search for AMD, then yeah those links at the top are just banners, but they are clearly marked out of the way highlighted banners.
If you are BUYING an AMD though, the banners are a great place to start, as opposed to other banner ads, even on
I don't think you are what most people are complaining about. I agree, if you burn your ALLOTTED bandwith at full speed most of the time, I should STILL be able to use my full speed when I need it. The ISP should account for YOUR bursts matching MY bursts.
When people start getting pissed is when your bursts are higher than they are allowed to be, causing your burst to block my bursts. If a neighborhood has a bunch of computer geeks, the correct response is for the ISP to allocate higher burst rates. However, if the neighborhood has a lot of uncappers, the correct response is to get the law involved or simply to terminate their contracts.
It's the whole "right to swing your fist" argument.
What you're missing is that evolving spammers from spam also fixes the problem. The better the content filtering is, the more they have to adapt their marketing pitch to fit norms we can consider acceptable. The better the filters are the more they have to tailor their pitch. Eventually they are either sending email people want, or not sending email at all because their message can't get through.
The other part of this requires thought on your part and reading between the lines. Granted, Realnetworks DOES do their best to convince you to buy the the player, but they cite in their letter people who accidentally paid money for something they knew should be free.
This should indicate to you we are not dealing with someone savvy enough to ask for a non-microsoft alternative, especially when the non-microsoft alternative requires them to download a seperate product to avoid using the exact same microsoft product to beginning with. Keep in mind this is computer user who has already failed the "giving credit card number will result in charges" test for RealNetworks.
FYI -- See how long it takes YOU to find the free player. While I see the problem* it only takes reading the webpage for someone to figure it out. As a school teacher, I can unfortunately tell you that reading is one of the biggest problems we have in our society today.
*Problem: On the first page you click a link to go the player section, on the second page you click "Download Player" graphic button to continue, on third page the two graphic buttons are for paid player, while the free player is on the right side with a text link again.
That's FRENCH ?!?
GET HIM!
Indeed, all of the orders I've placed had their tracking information on the website itself updated every couple hours.
In my experience though, they tend to move fast enough that it seems to be like this:
Your order is at Step 1: Validating Order
*RELOAD*
Your order is at Step 2: Verifying payment information
*RELOAD*
Your order is at Step 2: Verifying payment information
*RELOAD*
Your order is at Step 6: The FedEx guy is about to ring your*DING DONG*
Now sales of those tapes that will help you "improve your life while you sleep" will REALLY take off.
I misread that as Ovaltine and thought, well of course, they didn't have their secret decoder pin.
Boy you are going to get the IP police on you about this one.
Downloading MP3's is NOT a federal crime, for very many reasons.
1) It pisses me off when people leave out the words "without distribution permission". I know why people do it, but the net result is it allows people to label an entire class of LEGAL activity as being shady. For example, absolutely nothing stops me from recording my wife singing, encoding it in the MP3 format, and sharing it. There are plenty of bands (insert rant about commercialized music and better alternatives) that have authorized distribution. MP3 != stolen
2) It's not a federal crime. It's a violated contract. These are civil court infractions, not federal violations.
3) The difference between a civil dispute and a federal crime is quite large. As in the difference between at most a fine and years of jail time.
The parent poster was absolutely right. People forget what a REAL crime it is and ruin their whole lives. You'd honestly be better off stealing a candy bar than forging a $5 to pay for it.
Not the same.
Filters use signatures to compare how likely something is to be spam. This is basically authorizing them to keep an actual copy of your work, then use that copy as a basis for comparison to see if something in the future is the same work.
Nice FUD. The argument is over whether it is possible to be healthy and still eat foods high in sugar or fat. The US position is that diet is dependent on lifestyle and thus occasional splurging is fine for a healthy person if they exercise to burn it off. This is perfectly rational.
The WHO basically ignored factoring in lifestyle, saying instead that certain diets were optimal for everyone. The WHO isn't wrong, they are just being overly stringent with their guidlines. The US prefers to emphasize that a healthy lifestyle can also be an enjoyable lifestyle.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Calories are Calories, the only difference is quantity.
Someone post a .torrent link
The sad part is I was going to suggest that an American interracial mission would probably get more support, and even before I finished typing it in, I realized that the headline wouldn't be:
US President Sends Men to Mars
It would be:
US President Condemns Black Astronaut to Death!
I'm sorry, because I do agree with you, but I just can't resist.
Oh, and the odds of the RTG not surviving are about the same as the black box in an airplane not surviving.
Did you know that there are several black boxes on any given airplane for different systems, and often they aren't recovered?
Hence the word, "about"
Doesn't even NEED devices attached. Run this through an Xray machine and pray you have your receipt and owners manual with you when they are trying to figure out why your jacket is wired up like a Christmas tree.
Google has relatively unbiased news. Unbiased in the sense that they don't promote any particular bias themselves, instead providing you with access to as much different bias as you'd desire. It may be more along the lines of the "fairness is treating EVERYONE like crap" logic, but it does give an interesting spectrum at times.
In addition, there are very real reasons to want to avoid using a pencil, not the least of which is what do with the shavings as well any snapped points floating around the capsule.