Aside from the obvious removal of privacy... Ever think that this could be the culmination of EVERYTHING?
*fade to an office overlooking Capital Hill*
Congressman 1: What are we going to do? We've got so many things we've got to do before the next Congress... There's Microsoft, that wants us to stop bugging it about its bugs and monopoly and instead make it illegal to write open-source code... There's the RIAA/MPAA that wants us to make sure that only RIAA-representatives assigned to every households can unlock a CD for a single play after paying them $200... And there's the whole "terrorism" thing so we can take away privacy...
Congressman 2: I've got the solution to all of our problems!
Congressman 1: Eh? What?
Congressman 2: How about... We spend millions of tax dollars to code something that allows us to look at everyone's data on their hard drive, and monitors for any sound card and video card activity whatsoever... Reporting that to the MPAA and RIAA so they can charge people for it!
Congressman 1: Sounds good... But I'm not sure we could get it through all the angry protesters...
Congressman 2: I'm not done yet! I'll get to that! First... We need to make it Windows-only...
Congressman 1: I'm listening...
Congressman 2: Make everyone have to PAY for it...
Congressman 1: This idea is sounding better...
Congressman 2: And make a law requiring that this specific Windows-only software be installed on every single computer, RETROACTIVELY! Regardless of whether it has Mac OS, Linux, or Windows! Or else they'll be put in jail for 5 years...
Congressman 1: It's still missing something though...
Congressman 2: Let's tell everyone that it's a patch for Windows that will make it more secure!
Congressman 1: THAT IT! Brilliant my esteemed collegue! Simply brilliant! Let's bring this up in the Senate tomorrow! They won't be ABLE to say no!
In North Dallas, for renting/purchasing, I suggest The Movie Trading Company near the intersection of Belt Line and Preston. Sometimes cheaper than average, and sometimes not, they have one of the biggest selections of anime in VHS and DVD that I've ever seen in a conventional video store (This would be because they also buy used videos to resell them).
Then in Plano (or if you want to just make the big trek) there's Planet Anime. Though I've never actually really purchased or rented there, they seem to have a LOT of rentals available. Purchases are not so broad.)
Finally there's this one place that rents out fansubs in Addison or something, but I can't remember its name as I've never been there, and have only heard of it in passing or seen a tape that was rented from there in my Anime club (I think). It was "Eclectic" something or "Odd" something.
Fellow Slashdotter Gets Sued by Coalition of American Railroad, German Railroads ask for Warrant
Fellow Slashdotter wytcld was sued today by a coalition of American railroads for violating the DMCA by posting several possible ways to circumvent the technological measure of using rails to protect trains from being derailed.
In addition, German and Dutch railroads have jointly filed for a warrant to be issued for both the Slashdotter's arrest and the arrests of Slashdot editors so that they may try them for posting and linking to illegal information that detailed how to derail a train.
As I've said multiple times, I'm not at all against Mozilla being entirely standards-compliant. My problem lies in the fact that they both interpret the standards differently (Particularly in the case of getting the style attribute text according to the DOM)
I'm not complaining about the fact that there are different views by appliance. With some of the limitations of them (Cell phones, TVs) it's difficult to find any other implementation. The problem, however, lies in the fact that there are two different and fairly prominent methods (~12% Netscape/Mozilla, ~85% IE) of viewing the page on the computer alone. The fact that program code (in the form of PHP, JavaScript, etc.) is needed to differentiate between the two methods of illustrating style (as opposed to context) in order to display the page properly in either context defeats the purpose of having a standards agency (the W3C).
Given that there are web standards out there, and that IE implements them, I just don't undersatnd this attitude that you must design for IE. What's the problem with you people? Sheesh.
The problem lies in the EXACT fact that I wrote this rant [link] on my blog.
To summarize briefly what I say in it: I try to code by standards, but the problem lies in the fact that you cannot code by standards and expect it to look and act the same in every browser, due to the different interpretations OF the standards.
It is due to this fact that people code specifically for browsers, or at the least, have to have browser specific code executed by either JavaScript, PHP, or Perl.
And thus I, in part, lend credence to coding only for IE. It would be nice to put in browser-specific code, but some people have neither the time nor the patience to code as such. And considering the near monopoly IE has on browsers, unless you aim to please all of your users, or you have an abnormal abundance of Mozilla users, it is perfectly acceptable (in my opinion) to code specifically for IE. I choose not to, but it's up to others to make the decision.
One of the reasons *I* prefer to try to make it AT LEAST compatible with Mozilla and IE is for the simple fact that the percentages of browsers may easily shift (though not completely, I'm sure) soon, what with AOL potentially switching its internal browser to Mozilla [link] (which has already been done with Compuserve [link]).
Wouldn't changing the bit value be fair use? Or rather, to enable *MORE* fair usage of the font? For that matter, does the copyright specify that that bit has to remain the same? No EULA with fonts, as far as I know.
Next we'll be paying for using the fonts in logos on websites.
Let's see here... Depending on what point in the orbit, seems to me that the ping time would be anywhere between 6:04 (Mars is 182 light-seconds (54.5 million km) away at its closest point) and 44:38 (It's 1339 light-seconds (410.3 million km) away at its furthest point). So yes, that's minutes:seconds.
Seems to me that RPGs like Final Fantasy have a conveyance of ideas of a sort. Hell, there's enough lines of text in there that they OUGHT to amount to speech (one would think).
And also consider the fact that of late, RPGs and some platformers been considered very much LIKE movies (Final Fantasy anyone?), a contrast to Limbaugh's claim that "The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
It's practically impossible to liken something with such a elaborately laid-out plot and script like Final Fantasy to a board game like Chutes and Ladders.
The same people who brought you CAP Alert!
Anyone think Microsoft is starting to help fund the Religious Right against the evil "devilry" of *NIX and Macs?
Sure, a.xxx (which may be actually a better one than.prn in my opinion) would not cover international sites, but would in an ideal situation, would it hinder free speech? The.edu name or the.gov name never hinders free speech, only specific limits on the domain name holders are enforced.
It is true that a big brother type arrangement could be set up as a result, but IDEALLY, a separate tld for porn sites would not only aid in preventing access by those who don't desire their children to access such sites, but it would also aid in those who WANT to find such websites (as they would always end in.xxx or.prn or whatever you want the tld to be.)
The only logistical problems I figured out with such a setup (I had a plan very similar in my own head for a while) would possibly be tied with extra fees that people would have to pay to ensure that all American adult-only sites are within the correct domain.
In *MY* opinion, I'm all in support of an unrestricted domain name that is specifically for porn sites (provided that such an law is not abused or extended so conservatively to any site that says a curse word). But I'm not so fond of having to pay extra fees to the government in order for them to make sure that my site is not pornographic. (And the red tape if for any reason they decide that one phrase on my site IS).
So in summary, the.prn domain is both a godsend and another influence of big brother. As long as no law could be passed to mandate anything that APPEARED on it. (Forcing sites to be on it is one thing, using it to curtail free speech by subsequently shutting down or limiting such sites is another).
It's like socialism. It looks good on paper, but there's no chance of it working out well in real life. In a world without corruption, sure. But it's simply not a feasible idea without having the POTENTIAL of abusing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange Candy: Okashina Okashi
Tsunami Channel
Aside from the obvious removal of privacy... Ever think that this could be the culmination of EVERYTHING?
*fade to an office overlooking Capital Hill*
Congressman 1: What are we going to do? We've got so many things we've got to do before the next Congress... There's Microsoft, that wants us to stop bugging it about its bugs and monopoly and instead make it illegal to write open-source code... There's the RIAA/MPAA that wants us to make sure that only RIAA-representatives assigned to every households can unlock a CD for a single play after paying them $200... And there's the whole "terrorism" thing so we can take away privacy...
Congressman 2: I've got the solution to all of our problems!
Congressman 1: Eh? What?
Congressman 2: How about... We spend millions of tax dollars to code something that allows us to look at everyone's data on their hard drive, and monitors for any sound card and video card activity whatsoever... Reporting that to the MPAA and RIAA so they can charge people for it!
Congressman 1: Sounds good... But I'm not sure we could get it through all the angry protesters...
Congressman 2: I'm not done yet! I'll get to that! First... We need to make it Windows-only...
Congressman 1: I'm listening...
Congressman 2: Make everyone have to PAY for it...
Congressman 1: This idea is sounding better...
Congressman 2: And make a law requiring that this specific Windows-only software be installed on every single computer, RETROACTIVELY! Regardless of whether it has Mac OS, Linux, or Windows! Or else they'll be put in jail for 5 years...
Congressman 1: It's still missing something though...
Congressman 2: Let's tell everyone that it's a patch for Windows that will make it more secure!
Congressman 1: THAT IT! Brilliant my esteemed collegue! Simply brilliant! Let's bring this up in the Senate tomorrow! They won't be ABLE to say no!
Then in Plano (or if you want to just make the big trek) there's Planet Anime. Though I've never actually really purchased or rented there, they seem to have a LOT of rentals available. Purchases are not so broad.)
Finally there's this one place that rents out fansubs in Addison or something, but I can't remember its name as I've never been there, and have only heard of it in passing or seen a tape that was rented from there in my Anime club (I think). It was "Eclectic" something or "Odd" something.
Or if you have a copy of Urutsukidoji encoded in DivX hidden on you machine.
Fellow Slashdotter Gets Sued by Coalition of American Railroad, German Railroads ask for Warrant
Fellow Slashdotter wytcld was sued today by a coalition of American railroads for violating the DMCA by posting several possible ways to circumvent the technological measure of using rails to protect trains from being derailed.
In addition, German and Dutch railroads have jointly filed for a warrant to be issued for both the Slashdotter's arrest and the arrests of Slashdot editors so that they may try them for posting and linking to illegal information that detailed how to derail a train.
As I've said multiple times, I'm not at all against Mozilla being entirely standards-compliant. My problem lies in the fact that they both interpret the standards differently (Particularly in the case of getting the style attribute text according to the DOM)
I'm not complaining about the fact that there are different views by appliance. With some of the limitations of them (Cell phones, TVs) it's difficult to find any other implementation. The problem, however, lies in the fact that there are two different and fairly prominent methods (~12% Netscape/Mozilla, ~85% IE) of viewing the page on the computer alone. The fact that program code (in the form of PHP, JavaScript, etc.) is needed to differentiate between the two methods of illustrating style (as opposed to context) in order to display the page properly in either context defeats the purpose of having a standards agency (the W3C).
Given that there are web standards out there, and that IE implements them, I just don't undersatnd this attitude that you must design for IE. What's the problem with you people? Sheesh.
The problem lies in the EXACT fact that I wrote this rant [link] on my blog.
To summarize briefly what I say in it: I try to code by standards, but the problem lies in the fact that you cannot code by standards and expect it to look and act the same in every browser, due to the different interpretations OF the standards.
It is due to this fact that people code specifically for browsers, or at the least, have to have browser specific code executed by either JavaScript, PHP, or Perl.
And thus I, in part, lend credence to coding only for IE. It would be nice to put in browser-specific code, but some people have neither the time nor the patience to code as such. And considering the near monopoly IE has on browsers, unless you aim to please all of your users, or you have an abnormal abundance of Mozilla users, it is perfectly acceptable (in my opinion) to code specifically for IE. I choose not to, but it's up to others to make the decision.
One of the reasons *I* prefer to try to make it AT LEAST compatible with Mozilla and IE is for the simple fact that the percentages of browsers may easily shift (though not completely, I'm sure) soon, what with AOL potentially switching its internal browser to Mozilla [link] (which has already been done with Compuserve [link]).
Am I reduced to the Linux PVR project? I'd rather not build my own.
Rest assured, the TV companies would sue you under the DMCA before you could get that far with it.
Wouldn't changing the bit value be fair use? Or rather, to enable *MORE* fair usage of the font? For that matter, does the copyright specify that that bit has to remain the same? No EULA with fonts, as far as I know.
Next we'll be paying for using the fonts in logos on websites.
Looks like the Simpsons foretells the future again...[#AABF20 "Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo]
Let's see here... Depending on what point in the orbit, seems to me that the ping time would be anywhere between 6:04 (Mars is 182 light-seconds (54.5 million km) away at its closest point) and 44:38 (It's 1339 light-seconds (410.3 million km) away at its furthest point). So yes, that's minutes:seconds.
That not a single one of these games was an RPG?
Seems to me that RPGs like Final Fantasy have a conveyance of ideas of a sort. Hell, there's enough lines of text in there that they OUGHT to amount to speech (one would think).
And also consider the fact that of late, RPGs and some platformers been considered very much LIKE movies (Final Fantasy anyone?), a contrast to Limbaugh's claim that "The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
It's practically impossible to liken something with such a elaborately laid-out plot and script like Final Fantasy to a board game like Chutes and Ladders.
Mario Party on the other hand...
The same people who brought you CAP Alert! Anyone think Microsoft is starting to help fund the Religious Right against the evil "devilry" of *NIX and Macs?
Sure, a .xxx (which may be actually a better one than .prn in my opinion) would not cover international sites, but would in an ideal situation, would it hinder free speech? The .edu name or the .gov name never hinders free speech, only specific limits on the domain name holders are enforced.
It is true that a big brother type arrangement could be set up as a result, but IDEALLY, a separate tld for porn sites would not only aid in preventing access by those who don't desire their children to access such sites, but it would also aid in those who WANT to find such websites (as they would always end in .xxx or .prn or whatever you want the tld to be.)
The only logistical problems I figured out with such a setup (I had a plan very similar in my own head for a while) would possibly be tied with extra fees that people would have to pay to ensure that all American adult-only sites are within the correct domain.
In *MY* opinion, I'm all in support of an unrestricted domain name that is specifically for porn sites (provided that such an law is not abused or extended so conservatively to any site that says a curse word). But I'm not so fond of having to pay extra fees to the government in order for them to make sure that my site is not pornographic. (And the red tape if for any reason they decide that one phrase on my site IS).
So in summary, the .prn domain is both a godsend and another influence of big brother. As long as no law could be passed to mandate anything that APPEARED on it. (Forcing sites to be on it is one thing, using it to curtail free speech by subsequently shutting down or limiting such sites is another).
It's like socialism. It looks good on paper, but there's no chance of it working out well in real life. In a world without corruption, sure. But it's simply not a feasible idea without having the POTENTIAL of abusing it.