The problem is that we are given such a small selection of people to choose who will rule us from (2 in the US) that it does not actualy count as a democracy according to the strict (original) definition.
You do have other choices! Vote for who you really want, and work to promote alternative choices--don't accept a two party system. Your two-party overlords want your apathy. Don't give it to them.
There is *no* valid reason to hold a torrent link to a music file or software for which you don't own the copyright (or have not the permission from the copyright holder). None, other than encourage people to infringe on the copyright.
I propose that we leave standard TV and radio as a sacrifical lamb to the people who want to censor things. That way, they could rant and rail and complain and leave the rest of us to continue saying things about naughty bits in other fora without their interference. As more of us relax, we can take bites out of the "half the fucking spectrum."
Wrong. GPLv3 does not restict the user's "freedom zero" in any way. GPLv3 does not restrict either using the GPL for DRM code, or putting DRM into GPL'd code. All it says is that if you distribute GPLv3 software with your hardware product, the software must be able to run on that hardware even after it is modified.
What technology should I use if I want to make sure my video and photos of today is around for my great-grandchildren? (Assuming they care...) Is there a service that will keep them continually updated in a lossless digital format? How would they get paid?
A sibling points out that the Senate vote for the USA PATRIOT Act was 98 to 1 (with one abstention) and the lone holdout was Sen. Russ Feingold. In the House, though, the vote was less lopsided: 357 to 66.
Bah. That's easy. The business of creating and using an XMLHttpRequest is well-documented and easy to do. What is far less well documented is how to access the resulting XML as a cross-browser XML DOM object. (Accessing it as text is easy.)
How does one access the results 1) as an XML DOM, and 2) in a cross browser way. I am currently investigating Sarissa.
I challenge someone to come up with a good article on that!
To be a pedant, and for the benefit of all 3 people who will read this comment:
You have to agree to a license in order to copy the source code and use it for your own programs.
Incorrect. You can copy the source code and use it for your own programs without agreeing to anything. You have to agree to the license in order to distribute the program.
And if they do not give you the source code, then they are out-of-compliance with their license, and therefore do not have the right to distribute the code--binary or source--which is an infringement of the *author*s copyright, not yours. So you have nothing that you can sue for. Only the copyright holder(s) can bring any legal action.
Oh man. I wish it was better, but it's really bad. Overtraining kills it. Accidentally marking something as spam, and then unmarking it kills it so you get much more spam for weeks. Asa Dotzler thinks that 90-95% hit ratio is good.
Candidate A associates with crooked politicians, and consults with anthologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
You're not serious? Roosevelt consulted with anthologists? That takes him right out of my book!
I apologize for not making myself clear. I said 'Name me a prominent case where a judge has ruled "that EULA's are not legally binding since virtually no one reads them." '
The Adobe case is about SoftMan re-selling unopened versions of Adobe's software. This case is about SoftMan not assenting to the agreement, and possibly that the terms were not fully disclosed prior to sale. It is not a condemnation of EULAs because nobody reads them.
Your comment about beating someone over the head with a shovel is also a valid argument against EULAs which claim to take away rights which are inalienable, but again, it has nothing to do with EULAs being read or not read.
I call BS. Name me a prominent case where a judge has ruled "that EULA's are not legally binding since virtually no one reads them."
I'd love that to be true, but in this case you're pulling "facts" out of thin air.
There are many area where an ontological search (not necessarily graphical like C|Net) is very useful. For example. I started writing a search engine for medical texts which used a medical ontology underneath. It made it so you could search for "heart attack" and get back results about "myocardial infarction" which never mentioned the term "heart attack."
Alright people, this is stupid. Computer software patents in the U.S. have to be abolished. I've written my senators and representative. What else should we do now?
Watching porn does not significantly increase the likelihood of people being killed. Owning a gun *does*.
And yes, we do have laws which limit this sort of thing **cough cough** seat-belt laws *cough cough** helmet laws **cough cough** speed limits **cough cough**.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Nielsen is generally a smart guy I think you are confusing the user-interface guru Jakob Nielsen, with the market research company A.C. Nielsen.
The problem is that we are given such a small selection of people to choose who will rule us from (2 in the US) that it does not actualy count as a democracy according to the strict (original) definition.
You do have other choices! Vote for who you really want, and work to promote alternative choices--don't accept a two party system. Your two-party overlords want your apathy. Don't give it to them.
>> which now join other items on the banned list such as tobacco, drugs, weapons, and prostitution
Sure, the goog doesn't allow ads for "tobacco" and "cigarettes", but they do for "tobaccos" and "cigarette holders." No ads for "prostitution", but they allow "sex for sale." "Weapons" and "handguns" -- no problem. "Drugs"? Yep.
Try "checkered" versus "chequered" in Google, and you'll get 4.6 times as many hits for the British spelling.
American: about 4,420,000 for checkered
British: about 1,420,000 for chequered
That's about three times as many hits for the American spelling.
I propose that we leave standard TV and radio as a sacrifical lamb to the people who want to censor things. That way, they could rant and rail and complain and leave the rest of us to continue saying things about naughty bits in other fora without their interference. As more of us relax, we can take bites out of the "half the fucking spectrum."
Wrong. GPLv3 does not restict the user's "freedom zero" in any way. GPLv3 does not restrict either using the GPL for DRM code, or putting DRM into GPL'd code. All it says is that if you distribute GPLv3 software with your hardware product, the software must be able to run on that hardware even after it is modified.
What technology should I use if I want to make sure my video and photos of today is around for my great-grandchildren? (Assuming they care...) Is there a service that will keep them continually updated in a lossless digital format? How would they get paid?
A sibling points out that the Senate vote for the USA PATRIOT Act was 98 to 1 (with one abstention) and the lone holdout was Sen. Russ Feingold. In the House, though, the vote was less lopsided: 357 to 66.
Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part :-)
Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument ... they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.
Is deliberatley an English word, too? No wonder us 'merican hicks cain't git it right.
[Just pulling your leg. Not disturbed, just amused.]
I know Bill's secret username. I can't tell you exactly, because they'd find me, but its initials are "A.C."
Unrecoverable? What's wrong with FDISK?
"Personally I've never shot a person and I don't own a gun."
I stopped reading right there. It's kind of hard to criticize something without actually ever doing it.
I tried it and it works!
The only thing the article fails to mention is that the phones must be inside a 400 degree oven for the entire process. But other than that...
Bah. That's easy. The business of creating and using an XMLHttpRequest is well-documented and easy to do. What is far less well documented is how to access the resulting XML as a cross-browser XML DOM object. (Accessing it as text is easy.)
How does one access the results 1) as an XML DOM, and 2) in a cross browser way. I am currently investigating Sarissa.
I challenge someone to come up with a good article on that!
To be a pedant, and for the benefit of all 3 people who will read this comment:
You have to agree to a license in order to copy the source code and use it for your own programs.
Incorrect. You can copy the source code and use it for your own programs without agreeing to anything. You have to agree to the license in order to distribute the program.
And if they do not give you the source code, then they are out-of-compliance with their license, and therefore do not have the right to distribute the code--binary or source--which is an infringement of the *author*s copyright, not yours. So you have nothing that you can sue for. Only the copyright holder(s) can bring any legal action.
Oh man. I wish it was better, but it's really bad. Overtraining kills it. Accidentally marking something as spam, and then unmarking it kills it so you get much more spam for weeks. Asa Dotzler thinks that 90-95% hit ratio is good.
If ever a reference needed a link this is it.
Dr. Who: City of Death
(Also, check out the Modern Art video clip with John Cleese on that same page.)
You're not serious? Roosevelt consulted with anthologists? That takes him right out of my book!
I apologize for not making myself clear. I said 'Name me a prominent case where a judge has ruled "that EULA's are not legally binding since virtually no one reads them." '
The Adobe case is about SoftMan re-selling unopened versions of Adobe's software. This case is about SoftMan not assenting to the agreement, and possibly that the terms were not fully disclosed prior to sale. It is not a condemnation of EULAs because nobody reads them.
Your comment about beating someone over the head with a shovel is also a valid argument against EULAs which claim to take away rights which are inalienable, but again, it has nothing to do with EULAs being read or not read.
I call BS. Name me a prominent case where a judge has ruled "that EULA's are not legally binding since virtually no one reads them." I'd love that to be true, but in this case you're pulling "facts" out of thin air.
There are many area where an ontological search (not necessarily graphical like C|Net) is very useful. For example. I started writing a search engine for medical texts which used a medical ontology underneath. It made it so you could search for "heart attack" and get back results about "myocardial infarction" which never mentioned the term "heart attack."
An ontology can make your search much better.
Alright people, this is stupid. Computer software patents in the U.S. have to be abolished. I've written my senators and representative. What else should we do now?
Your point is understood. However...
Watching porn does not significantly increase the likelihood of people being killed. Owning a gun *does*.
And yes, we do have laws which limit this sort of thing **cough cough** seat-belt laws *cough cough** helmet laws **cough cough** speed limits **cough cough**.