If you give "wealth" to everyone, it ceases to be wealth. Indeed, encouraging such things as human rights would probably put a number of American corporations out of business--freedom is just as expensive in money as in blood.
In any case, it's the rest of the world which has two choices: incorporate within their own governments the rights and system of government upon which western democracies are built, and exposing American attempts to undermine such governments as needed; or continue hating us for our success, and continue falling further into the dark ages as a result. Anything else is just waiting for a handout.
OPT in on everything is required and a federal fine of $1000.00 per incident of releasing the unauthorized information and every use of it thereafter.
You're opting in by giving them your information in the first place. . . especially since they could conceivably state, "By filling out this form you agree to opt-in to the butt-ramming you will receive at the hands of our marketing department." The only thing that "opt-in" might prevent would be the "We just reset all your preferences" garbage; but even then, I'm doubtful.
Do the safe thing--presume that once your information leaves your hands en route to any sort of sign-up, subscription, online membership, or otherwise unencrypted commercial website, it will become available to the general public--the question is not, "will it be available," but "how easy will it be to obtain?"
Hey, fine by me. Right now my E-mail filters delete spam from the server and/or pass it straight to my trashcan. But if Big Brother wants to read my e-mails, well, a couple little changes to those filters and they can read all they want!
Another responder said, "Run a script to change the names of all your pictures and all the references."
Here's another idea. . . store the images as binary-objects in a database, and use PHP or ASP to fetch and display the images. The same PHP/ASP could secure the images from any external links.
In the meantime, I suggest a revision to an old agade: Those who can't do, legislate.
Way too much time? Probably. If he had way too much money, though, he would have: bought webspace on a real server; paid someone to do some rudimentary attempt at website design; and bought a dictionary so that "Thanatos" would have been spelled correctly.
How I long for a day when artists and scientists don't need corporate patrons.
Before it was corporations, it was the government. Actually, it's largely still the government, when the people in office have the brains and the cojones to put money into serious R&D and artistic/cultural development.
<Rant Type="Soapbox">
Unfortunately, we in the United States don't have that. We have a nation whose politicians prefer to score points by declaring such things as the Superconducting SuperCollider "pork-barrel," whilst ensuring the Ten Commandments are posted on every street corner and "Creation Theory" is substituted for real science in public schools.
Probably the safest haven for pure research and arts anymore is the university system. . . any bets on how long that will last?
That's right, Cmdr. Taco has ensured that, from now on,.NET banner ads would run with every MS story. With all the positive press Microsoft already receives from/., this targeted advertising is sure to draw wheelbarrows of money from click-throughs.
Or not. Hey, someone make sure there're no nanoprobes in Taco's bloodstream. ..
When I buy a new book, I know that the book is in the best condition it's ever going to be in. That peace of mind, to me, is worth the few dollars I might save otherwise by buying used and gambling that the book I purchase will be in like-new condition.
So, I buy new whenever I can. Maybe this tack would work well with other book buyers as well?
What it ultimately comes down to is that fact that Microsoft's products do a lot more for me than any other company/movement, rendering whether the code is 'bad' or not irrelevant.
Bad code translates directly to more bugs and longer bugfix times than code which is both internally documented and well-structured--sounds a lot like the troubles Microsoft has with its OS software, doesn't it? Anyway, what that means is, I'm paying for their mistakes. I don't need to see the code as an end-user, but I want a low maintenance cost--and keeping the code readable is a big part of that.
Also, judging from your statement, I doubt you'd know bad code anyway.
While it's probably true that three years' experience with PL/SQL isn't much in terms of raw quantity. . . I work beside an Oracle contractor. Trust me when I say, I know bad code.
The funny thing is, a lot of folks within the open-source community have spend many man-years "reviewing" the security (or lack thereof) in Windows software. And they haven't done that just in the last two months, but for as long as Microsoft has published Windows. Sure, it's not a code review per se, Microsoft tends to be something of a code-Nazi.
Makes you wonder what sort of spaghetti they're hiding, though. . . I have the sneaking suspicion that if I ever saw their code, I'd never again use a MS product.
Nay, it's a virtual windfall when I make it their problem by keeping the items and refuting the credit card charges.
Regardless, there's a good point to make here--never give your credit card and/or mailing address information to anyone unless you (A) know and trust whom you're giving it to, and (B) you're making a purchase and know there are no strings attached.
All well and good. . .
on
Tool Box PC
·
· Score: 1
No need--Compuserve already owns the patent on GIFs. . . or is that the trademark? Anyway, they've tried a couple times to enforce this, and make people "pay to play" with.GIF images; but the format had drifted so far into public domain by the time they tried to enforce it that no one really did anything more than laugh.
Only if you remember to include the dismemberment of the twits who take out the vague, simplistic patents in the first place. Though, if many/.ers had their way, your patent would probably fail on "prior art". ..
From Atty. Rupa Bhattacharyya's arguments in court: "Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."
And she's right, but probably not the way she thinks. The answer to her question is that Congress cannot use its powers in a manner that violates the Constitution--including the First Amendment.
Looks like I won't be able to go out and get the latest Brittany Spears albumn *darnit*.
The sad thing is that the music industry is killing themselves with this shit. Oh well, that's capitalism.
What's killing them is the shit they're mass-marketing, not the way they're protecting it. And in any event, the Suits don't care what we think--we're not affecting their market.
Of course, their market will buy any crap the industry puts out anyway. . . the name of the boy band doesn't matter as long as the sound is the same. And it is.
If you read the entire article, you'll notice that his E-mails were blocked because they contained attachments. Besides, the mailing list is under the listowner's administration--and the listowner does have the right to include or exclude members at his/her discretion.
You realize that you may have just broken the law, right?
So does anyone who speeds or who throws their cigarette butts out the window. The costs from these crimes outweighs the costs from circumventing copy protection so that one can listen to a legally-purchased CD, I'm sure.
Which law do we believe? The DMCA, or the U.S. Copyright Act? One says we can't do this, the other says that--as long as we're making a copy for backup purposes, etc.--we can. I lean toward the latter. . . it just makes more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
If you give "wealth" to everyone, it ceases to be wealth. Indeed, encouraging such things as human rights would probably put a number of American corporations out of business--freedom is just as expensive in money as in blood.
In any case, it's the rest of the world which has two choices: incorporate within their own governments the rights and system of government upon which western democracies are built, and exposing American attempts to undermine such governments as needed; or continue hating us for our success, and continue falling further into the dark ages as a result. Anything else is just waiting for a handout.
OPT in on everything is required and a federal fine of $1000.00 per incident of releasing the unauthorized information and every use of it thereafter.
You're opting in by giving them your information in the first place. . . especially since they could conceivably state, "By filling out this form you agree to opt-in to the butt-ramming you will receive at the hands of our marketing department." The only thing that "opt-in" might prevent would be the "We just reset all your preferences" garbage; but even then, I'm doubtful.
Do the safe thing--presume that once your information leaves your hands en route to any sort of sign-up, subscription, online membership, or otherwise unencrypted commercial website, it will become available to the general public--the question is not, "will it be available," but "how easy will it be to obtain?"
Hey, fine by me. Right now my E-mail filters delete spam from the server and/or pass it straight to my trashcan. But if Big Brother wants to read my e-mails, well, a couple little changes to those filters and they can read all they want!
Another responder said, "Run a script to change the names of all your pictures and all the references."
Here's another idea. . . store the images as binary-objects in a database, and use PHP or ASP to fetch and display the images. The same PHP/ASP could secure the images from any external links.
In the meantime, I suggest a revision to an old agade: Those who can't do, legislate.
Just type AOHell or AOLame, you'll feel better. Works for me, anyway.
There's precedent, here. After all, Galileo burnt out his retinas studying the sun. And didn't Curie eventually die from radiation poisoning?
Way too much time? Probably. If he had way too much money, though, he would have: bought webspace on a real server; paid someone to do some rudimentary attempt at website design; and bought a dictionary so that "Thanatos" would have been spelled correctly.
How I long for a day when artists and scientists don't need corporate patrons.
Before it was corporations, it was the government. Actually, it's largely still the government, when the people in office have the brains and the cojones to put money into serious R&D and artistic/cultural development.
<Rant Type="Soapbox">Unfortunately, we in the United States don't have that. We have a nation whose politicians prefer to score points by declaring such things as the Superconducting SuperCollider "pork-barrel," whilst ensuring the Ten Commandments are posted on every street corner and "Creation Theory" is substituted for real science in public schools.
Probably the safest haven for pure research and arts anymore is the university system. . . any bets on how long that will last?
</Rant><Conspiracy Class="M$" Believability=0>
That's right, Cmdr. Taco has ensured that, from now on, .NET banner ads would run with every MS story. With all the positive press Microsoft already receives from /., this targeted advertising is sure to draw wheelbarrows of money from click-throughs.
Or not. Hey, someone make sure there're no nanoprobes in Taco's bloodstream. . .
</Conspiracy>
When I buy a new book, I know that the book is in the best condition it's ever going to be in. That peace of mind, to me, is worth the few dollars I might save otherwise by buying used and gambling that the book I purchase will be in like-new condition.
So, I buy new whenever I can. Maybe this tack would work well with other book buyers as well?
What it ultimately comes down to is that fact that Microsoft's products do a lot more for me than any other company/movement, rendering whether the code is 'bad' or not irrelevant.
Bad code translates directly to more bugs and longer bugfix times than code which is both internally documented and well-structured--sounds a lot like the troubles Microsoft has with its OS software, doesn't it? Anyway, what that means is, I'm paying for their mistakes. I don't need to see the code as an end-user, but I want a low maintenance cost--and keeping the code readable is a big part of that.
Also, judging from your statement, I doubt you'd know bad code anyway.
While it's probably true that three years' experience with PL/SQL isn't much in terms of raw quantity. . . I work beside an Oracle contractor. Trust me when I say, I know bad code.
The funny thing is, a lot of folks within the open-source community have spend many man-years "reviewing" the security (or lack thereof) in Windows software. And they haven't done that just in the last two months, but for as long as Microsoft has published Windows. Sure, it's not a code review per se, Microsoft tends to be something of a code-Nazi.
Makes you wonder what sort of spaghetti they're hiding, though. . . I have the sneaking suspicion that if I ever saw their code, I'd never again use a MS product.
Nay, it's a virtual windfall when I make it their problem by keeping the items and refuting the credit card charges.
Regardless, there's a good point to make here--never give your credit card and/or mailing address information to anyone unless you (A) know and trust whom you're giving it to, and (B) you're making a purchase and know there are no strings attached.
. . .but how well would it survive being whacked with a sledgehammer?
No need--Compuserve already owns the patent on GIFs. . . or is that the trademark? Anyway, they've tried a couple times to enforce this, and make people "pay to play" with .GIF images; but the format had drifted so far into public domain by the time they tried to enforce it that no one really did anything more than laugh.
Only if you remember to include the dismemberment of the twits who take out the vague, simplistic patents in the first place. Though, if many /.ers had their way, your patent would probably fail on "prior art". . .
Microsoft: We put the roach in encroach.
From Atty. Rupa Bhattacharyya's arguments in court: "Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."
And she's right, but probably not the way she thinks. The answer to her question is that Congress cannot use its powers in a manner that violates the Constitution--including the First Amendment.
I'm wondering how long it'll take Symantec to patent this, too. . .
When was the last time you bought a lottery ticket ? What are the odds on that-life changing event, vs the odds on that page ?
This rock will hit earth long before the project I'm on makes its ship date. . .
Looks like I won't be able to go out and get the latest Brittany Spears albumn *darnit*. The sad thing is that the music industry is killing themselves with this shit. Oh well, that's capitalism.
What's killing them is the shit they're mass-marketing, not the way they're protecting it. And in any event, the Suits don't care what we think--we're not affecting their market.
Of course, their market will buy any crap the industry puts out anyway. . . the name of the boy band doesn't matter as long as the sound is the same. And it is.
If you read the entire article, you'll notice that his E-mails were blocked because they contained attachments. Besides, the mailing list is under the listowner's administration--and the listowner does have the right to include or exclude members at his/her discretion.
All we have to do, then, is prevent these people from breeding and there won't be any more abominations like this.
Just one more persuasive argument for legalizing retroactive abortion. . .
Yeah, but British Telecom owns the patent for that. . . lynx is the next best they could do.
You realize that you may have just broken the law, right?
So does anyone who speeds or who throws their cigarette butts out the window. The costs from these crimes outweighs the costs from circumventing copy protection so that one can listen to a legally-purchased CD, I'm sure.
Which law do we believe? The DMCA, or the U.S. Copyright Act? One says we can't do this, the other says that--as long as we're making a copy for backup purposes, etc.--we can. I lean toward the latter. . . it just makes more sense.