Ok... I can't read Japanese... or is it Kanji that you read and Japanese that you speak? Whatever it is, I can't interpret what any of this means except for looking at the pictures.
And from looking at those pictures, it looks to me like this thing doesn't use TiVo software. Not that I think TiVo software is currently, and will forever be inherently better than any software. It's just that it has such excellent search features. The PVR component of this device simply won't be that good without effective search. And if you can't get enough good stuff into the PVR, who cares whether or not you can burn it to DVD?
I'm not saying that it needs TiVo software. I'm saying that it needs the effective searcy abilities of TiVo software. But if it has it, when can I get one?
I have a TiVo. I just sold it on ebay. I'm switching to DirecTV because I want to get the integrated DTV receiver w/TiVo builtin. It has a huge number of advantages over a standalone TiVo. But that's not the point.
The point is that it's fully supported by DirecTV. And it's highly unlikely that DirecTV will ever go to some centralized server like the AOL/Mystro solution because Sat TV is (for the most part) one way. So for DirecTV the best solution is a distributed solution like TiVo, rather than a centralized solution like Mystro.
And I know at least one person who, when their DirecTV receiver broke, decided to replace it with a TiVo enabled receiver.
So I don't think TiVo is going away. It may not replace the VCR as a consequence of being effectively locked out of the cable market. But it isn't going away. It'll just be a different upgrade feature for DirecTV. They'll advertise it as Mystro on steroids, and they'll let AOL do 90% of the marketing.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was saying. My bad!
I'm not comparing XML and HTML as markup languages. I'm comparing their paths down the road of "the tool which will forever simplify automation". And I'm claiming that expecting XML to be the great savior is as foolish as it was to expect HTML to be the great savior.
I don't have any issues with validation. I have issues with the assumption that a buzzword will solve all of our automation problems. The buzzword floating around now is XML. Do I agree that XML makes data interchange easier? Yes, I do. But, as another poster says, it all depends on having the same schema. Microsoft storing their documents in XML format will make MS Word no more compatible with Abiword than it is today, not as long as microsoft guards that schema.
My point is that XML may be the answer, but only for a very specific set of questions. The rest of the problems surrounding automation remain and are not really impacted by XML's success or failure.
I don't know XML. I used to know HTML. It used to be simple and consistent and easy to manage, too. But I don't know it anymore because it's expanded into this monstrosity that requires validation, formating, and whatnot.
How long will it be before XML, which may be simple and easy to make consistent now, is "extended" into a similar monster, only to be replaced by some other "savior" specification?
Why is it so difficult for us to recognize that, except for the most basic of things, automation is hard. There's no silver bullet. The job is hard, and as soon as we think we've got one thing automated, we're going to try to depend on that thing to automate the next thing. Then we're going to discover that we didn't do such a good job with the first thing and we'll have to go back and fix it.
Automation is hard. There's no silver bullet that will make it easy, not even XML. We may think it's going to solve all of our problems, but it won't. We won't know whether it solves anything until we rely on it. At which point it'll break because it's too simplistic, and we'll have to change it so that it's complicated and not simple and then we'll be again waiting for the next "savior". Call me a skeptic, but I don't think there is one.
Strange, but excellent movie. Tom Stoppard wrote it. It's basically the story of Hamelet told from the perspective of two lesser characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
But of course, it isn't at all about what Hamlet is about. It simply uses Hamlet as a backdrop in order to tell it's story. For a few years, it was absolutely my favorite movie. It still ranks very high.
Why do they need to provide any answer other than "because I want to"?
I can't give you permission to, nor forbid you from asking your question. That's up to you. But I think it's rude and intrusive. Your question implies, I think, that they need to justify what they're doing, instead of contributing to other projects that "starve from lack of developers". If some other project, that they're not intrested in, is starving for developers, that is not their problem.
Now, I could, of course, be misinterpreting what you're asking. You might simply be trying to understand what other features they plan. I don't see anything rude about that question. If that's what you're asking, my apologies. But your question was easily confused because you mentioned starving projects. You don't need to couch a request for a description of features on starving projects.
at the same time many FS/OSS projects starve from lack of developers, what is the point of writing yet another MUA?
Because they've got an itch that they want to scratch. It's there itch. They can scratch it however they like. As soon as you put them on your payroll then you can complain about misappropriated effort. As it is, they don't work for you. Until they do, it's really rather intrusive of you to complain about what they do with their own time.
For TMDA, yes there's a good FAQ. The specific question that you need to reference is a 4.12.
This answers how TMDA deals with this problem. I don't know how other challenge/response email systems deal with it.
There is an IETF draft which describes how automatic, machine generated responses are supposed to be formatted, so that they can be easily identified as such. The primary author of TMDA (Jason Mastaler) has, I believe, incorporated all of the recommendations of that draft which are applicable to TMDA. So, if other automatic response systems (like TMDA) are also following the recommendations of that draft, then all of these auto responders should be able to interract.
As a TiVo owner, I'm really disappointed by this news. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT disappointed by my TiVo. I love it. You can have it after you've pried it from my cold dead fingers. But competition is a good thing. I liked the fact that TiVo had competition. It kept TiVo afraid of losing customers and forced them to make customer desires a priority.
Now, there's no competition and anyone who is addicted to PVR functionality is basically stuck with TiVo. (MythTV not withstanding.) And TiVo now has little reason to fear the loss of customers, so they have less reason to actually improve the product.
I love my TiVo, but this I think this is a bad thing.
...military action is not the pre-emptive opening of hostilities against a sovereign nation, but rather the continuation of hostilities began by Iraq in 1990 with their invasion of Kuwait; said resumption being a direct result of repeated and flagrant violations of the ceasefire signed by Iraq in 1991.
I am not an economist, so forgive my ignorance... BUT, I wonder about whether or not one could argue that the existance of H1B visas had a material impact on the economic recession we're currently in.
Here's what I'm thinking, and if you ARE an economist, please correct me!
It's generally accepted that the current recession is a consequence of the fall of the tech sector. Right? And the tech sector fell because of unrealistic P/E ratios on stock prices. In an effort to get those P/E ratios more in line, one of two things had to happen, either the price had to drop or the earnings had to increase. One way to do that is to cut expenses. For almost EVERY company the single biggest expense is human resources. If you can cut labor costs, then you can get your P/E ratios up w/out having to actually sell more.
So Sun, et al, lobby congress and get the H1B visa program passed, and they cut expenses. P/E's can be improved... eventually. First you have to fire all those people. Those people increase the jobless rate. The market sees this, and reacts negatively, putting more pressure on realistic P/E ratios. And now the only way to increase P/E ratios is to actually sell something that someone wants right now. We can't wait anymore because we need to get those P/E ratios fixed now.
Except for the fact that the biggest technology consumers are the technology workers, and larger and larger numbers of them don't have any jobs. And those that do, are worried about their jobs, or are about to lose their jobs, or are accepting pay cuts or.... whatever they're doing, buying new technology is not what they're interested in.
Kaboom! P/E ratios do not get back to a sane level, and the market jumps ship, killing lots of companies and unemploying tons of workers, curtailing the spending of all of those people. Now, couple that with Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and Adelphia.
Of course, you could argue that Sun (et al) doesn't sell to consumers. They sell to banks, to CNN, to... fill in the blank. But banks sell to consumers. CNN sells to consumers. If the consumers aren't switching to use technology delivery of those services, then the banks and CNN and... aren't going to buy from Sun (et al).
Ok, so I'm an idiot. I know that. Does this hold any water?
Well that's odd then, because I looked up "Children of Dune" on my SA Series2, and I found it also. So the other guy's DirecTiVo and my standalone both found it under "Children of Dune". Wonder why you had trouble...
You do realize that the GPL is *not* enforceable in many coutries, Russia or China to name some, don't you?
I assume that the same copyright difficulties that exist for MPAA & MS would also exist for me.
The point of the hearing was not changing US laws, but how to get the international community to enact better copyright/anti-piracy provisions in their laws.
Forgive my ignorance, but how is the US Congress supposed to enact laws other than US laws? If you want to change international laws, you go and lobby those international bodies that can change the laws. If you want to change US laws, you go to the US Congress.
How does complaining to the US Congress about international copyright violations do anything other than try to get the congress to enact stronger US laws?
They did *NOT* state that pirating=terrorism. That statement was made only by the Justice Department (which is not necessarily better, IMHO, but significantly different to the slant that the article lends).
No but what they're trying to do is equate copying of copyrighted materials with organized crime... even fair use copying of those copyrighted materials. Does this article state that? No, not explicitly but it doesn't take too much reading between the lines to discern that.
Disclaimer: I have copyrighted materials out on the net. I expect the license (GPL) to be upheld. Hence I respect the copyrighted materials of others and I do not violate the terms of their licenses. And in most cases, that means not using their software, music, movies, etc. In the rest of the cases, I pay for a licensed copy.
Still fair use is not copyright violation, no matter what the DMCA says. The DMCA is wrong. IMHO, the best post on this topic was the one that said that the MPAA and MS are citing cases in Russia and China. How exactly is the US DOJ supposed to impact those cases? There is already strong laws against such activity in this country. The ONLY possible conclusion MUST be that the MPAA and MS are trying to create stronger laws against what they see as loopholes in US law. Namely: fair use.
Yes, you're right that this is not explicitly stated in the article. But I think they're threatening fair use, and I wish to be diligent in protecting that doctrine. So if it looks to me like they're implicitly threatening it, even though they aren't explicitly doing so, I'm going to get my guard up. And I think it's ok to do so.
Look at this paragraph:
Last year, as previously reported, a bill was introduced to Congress that originally was designed to address the hologram issue. But it morphed into something that would make it a federal felony for people to try and trick devices into playing their own music or running their own computer programs.
The article implies that the "morphing" was unintended. Do you think that? I certainly don't.
I think you're probably right that morality is impossible to define. But that's mostly because we expect to find a fine line between right and wrong, and we don't. Still even if that's true, there are some things that are clearly right and some things that are clearly wrong. And, interestinly enough, we find little disagreement to these things in just about every civilization on the planet.
For example, no one contends, so far as I'm aware, that wantonly killing someone is right. There are circumstances around which we allow for taking another persons life (e.g. self defense) but no one would say that randomly taking someone's life without provocation is a good thing. Similarly, no one would contend that lieing is good thing. There are circumstances which might make a lie understandable (e.g. a known child molestor asks the location of your children). But randomly lieing for no reason is generally frowned upon by pretty much everyone.
Now, given that there are some things that we clearly know are wrong. How effective are you at avoiding behaviors that you clearly know are wrong. Have you ever lied just to see if you could get away with it? Have you lied to protect yourself from the consequence of something you know you did, or to pan the responsibility on someone else? Have you ever bit some unsuspecting person's head off because of a bad day at work? Have you ever been lazy and not done work that you know should have been done, but you just didn't feel like it? Put another way, have you ever truly felt sorry for something you did prompting you to apologize to someone?
There are tons of things that pretty much everyone agrees are wrong. Have you done any of them? If so, then you've lived a life that doesn't meet even your own standards.
The question is this: what are you going to do about it? And a completely reasonable answer is: nothing. That answer works just fine right up until you bump into God. You may never bump into God, you may have already done so. But when it happens, it becomes immediately apparent that doing nothing about your unfufilled morality simply won't suffice. I suspect that you already have a sense of this if you've ever said to yourself "I want to live a better life than I'm leading." That's God, in a very subtle way, bumping into you. But still you may not have ever encountered what I'm talking about.
In one sense, I hope that never happens to you. I hope that you get to live blissfully ignorant of how poorly you're doing at meeting your own standards. I hope you get to live your life content and happy. But in another sense, I know that contentment and happiness are impossible if you don't ever become fully aware of your failings. You will spend your entire life trying to justify yourself to others who are trying to justify themselves. You'll spend your entire life bickering about whether or not your life is worthwhile to others who only care about their own lives. You'll spend your entire life stuck in the middle of the worst kind of backstabbing politics that you can imagine. And I do NOT wish this upon you. (For a great picture of this read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.)
So in a real sense, I hope (and pray) that you will be blessed to know your own failings sooner than later. Because that's when you can find the path to getting them fixed. And THEN you can start to see real happiness and real contentment.
This is my challenge to you: forget about the blurry morality. Focus entirely on the obvious right and wrongs. Write down a list of things that are obviously wrong. Write down a list of things that you think are wrong, even if it's not necessarily obvious. Write down a list of things that you think are right. And write down a list of things that are obviously right. Now go out for the next 6 weeks and do the things that are right, and avoid the things that are wrong. No lies. No laziness. No killing. (Hopefully the last one is easy for you.) Pursue kindness, generosity, and and compassion. Try to be perfect based on these standards for 6 weeks and see how you do.
Why do you believe this? Because someone told you to believe that.
Yes and no. Yes I believe this because someone told me to believe it. But not the someone you think. I believe this because I believe in God and I believe that God told me to trust his word, the Bible.
Now we can argue all day about whether or not its reasonable for me to believe in God, or if I'm just halucinating the existance of God. I'm certainly not going to try and prove to you that he exists. But my inability to prove this to you doesn't imply that I don't believe it. There are a hundred things that I can't prove to you that I still believe. I can't prove to you that I got up at 7:15am. But my experiences (looking at the clock) demand that I believe it even though I can't prove it to you.
That's how it is with God. I believe that he exists even though I can't prove it to you. My experiences with him simply compell me to believe in him regardless of whether or not I can prove it. And those same experiences compell me to believe him when he says to trust in his word. Yes, it was penned by men, but God says that they did a good job of conveying exactly what he wanted to say, and I trust him.
Of course, I can't prove this to you. I don't intend to try. I only want to answer your question of why I believe in the truth of the Bible.
That, I think, is a misunderstanding of that passage. The law is still the standard to which all of humanity will be judged. But it's been fulfilled by Jesus. If you align yourself with Jesus, then you will come under his protection w.r.t. the law since he has fulfilled it, and you will be judged by Christ's fulfillment of the law. If you don't align yourself with Christ, then you will be judged by your own fulfillment of the law (or more accurately, lack of fulfillment of the law).
The problem is that we can't uphold the law. We can't. CS Lewis recommends to anyone who seriously wants to be good, to try to do it all the time. Try to be good 100% of the time. Not 99.999% of the time. 100% of the time. Commit yourself to it for 6 weeks. You'll find, I think, that you can't do it. I certainly couldn't.
So what are we to do about the fact that we can't uphold the law, and yet are required to be judged by it? In the history of the world, there has been only one person who upheld the law. That person was Jesus Christ. He upheld the law fully. He, unlike anyone else in the history of the world, can claim his own righteousness. Yet what happened? He was sentanced to an execution, and not just any execution. An excruciatingly painful one. A crucifixion.
Why? Because the penalty for sin, for being unable to uphold the law, is death. That's what the law itself says. So you and I and everyone deserves death, since you and I and everyone has sinned.
That's where Christ comes in. The penalty for sin is death. And that penalty must be paid. Christ's death was the paid penalty for our sins. He lived a sinless life and yet paid the worst kind of sinners penalty imagineable. Because it was a perfect sacrifice (i.e. because Christ was sinless) his death is the paid penalty for all sinners throughout all history. His life will be the life which is judged by the law. But in order to be under the judgement of his life, you must align yourself with him. If you don't, you will be judged by your own life's measurement against the law.
There's much more to this than my over simplified summary. The book of Romans has much to say about it. But it's probably hard to understand out of the context of the entire scripture. I'd recommend, if you're interested, to read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.
once people see how much better it can be, they'll be more receptive to getting a ReplayTV or TiVo, because they'll understand why they want one (because the restricitions on the AOL service will be annoying).
The problem with this is it assumes the ability to distinguish the difference between Mystro TV and TiVo (for example). But if people only know Mystro and nothing about TiVo, how will they find the restrictions to be annoying? To them they're not restrictions. They're not capabilities taken away from TiVo. They're improvments to regular TV.
I can't set up per-user mail filtering with different tools
I'm really confused about what you mean by this? Although I've never set it up like this, why can't you simply put maildrop in UserA's.forward and procmail in UserB's.forward?
I think this guy really understands TMDA when he answered question #3 like this:
And how exactly do you propose to "inform the system that you are a real user"?
The answer to his question is, "By using TMDA, of course!". TMDA is an automated whitelist management program. I agree that manually managing whitelists is next to impossible, even at the individual level. But that's why TMDA exists, to automate that process.
And it's currently being tested on a large scale. GMANE is using TMDA as a mechanism of blocking spam for some 3500 mailing lists.
I wish I could rewrite the original question so that it was more clear that TMDA is an automated whitelist management program. Cuz I don't think the guy understood that. And he answered as if the question were suggesting that the ISP manage all their user's whitelists.
what is it about Gnome's file dialog that everybody hates so?
What I hate about it is that if I have to navigate around to different directories (i.e. directories other than the default) it is extremely inefficient.
The windows dialog is better in that it gives you a bunch of defaults that can rapidly take you to common places (e.g. Desktop, My Documents, My Computer).
KDE takes this one step further and allows you to define your own common places. So that if you configure "~/ftpin/" as a common location for you in one application, every other application inherets that common location.
I personally find it incredibly frustrating to navigate around in the gnome file dialog. I typically switch between two directories: ~/ftpin/ and ~/win/windows/Desktop. In GNOME apps, switching between these two locations takes 5 double clicks and lots of drag navigation. In windows this takes 1-2 double clicks and a little navigation (depending on where I'm trying to get to). In KDE it takes 1 double click no matter where I am.
The article mentions that they can't track the original spammers, that all the further that they can get is to the students computers. If they really want to track the spammers can't they track the money?
Which makes me wonder, how do the students get paid? Remaining anonymous is critical to spammers being able to continue doing their thing. How does a spammer actually pay someone w/out being trackable? I can't imagine that they send cash.
I went to a boarding school for High School. There were a lot of folks from Michigan who attended. They liked to call themselves "michiganders". I always called them "michigeese". For some reason, they didn't seem to like that. And I seemed to get beat up a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok... I can't read Japanese... or is it Kanji that you read and Japanese that you speak? Whatever it is, I can't interpret what any of this means except for looking at the pictures.
And from looking at those pictures, it looks to me like this thing doesn't use TiVo software. Not that I think TiVo software is currently, and will forever be inherently better than any software. It's just that it has such excellent search features. The PVR component of this device simply won't be that good without effective search. And if you can't get enough good stuff into the PVR, who cares whether or not you can burn it to DVD?
I'm not saying that it needs TiVo software. I'm saying that it needs the effective searcy abilities of TiVo software. But if it has it, when can I get one?
I have a TiVo. I just sold it on ebay. I'm switching to DirecTV because I want to get the integrated DTV receiver w/TiVo builtin. It has a huge number of advantages over a standalone TiVo. But that's not the point.
The point is that it's fully supported by DirecTV. And it's highly unlikely that DirecTV will ever go to some centralized server like the AOL/Mystro solution because Sat TV is (for the most part) one way. So for DirecTV the best solution is a distributed solution like TiVo, rather than a centralized solution like Mystro.
And I know at least one person who, when their DirecTV receiver broke, decided to replace it with a TiVo enabled receiver.
So I don't think TiVo is going away. It may not replace the VCR as a consequence of being effectively locked out of the cable market. But it isn't going away. It'll just be a different upgrade feature for DirecTV. They'll advertise it as Mystro on steroids, and they'll let AOL do 90% of the marketing.
$.02
Does that mean that I'm no longer legally allowed to block outgoing caller-id on my phone (a telecommunicatoins device)?
Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was saying. My bad!
I'm not comparing XML and HTML as markup languages. I'm comparing their paths down the road of "the tool which will forever simplify automation". And I'm claiming that expecting XML to be the great savior is as foolish as it was to expect HTML to be the great savior.
I don't have any issues with validation. I have issues with the assumption that a buzzword will solve all of our automation problems. The buzzword floating around now is XML. Do I agree that XML makes data interchange easier? Yes, I do. But, as another poster says, it all depends on having the same schema. Microsoft storing their documents in XML format will make MS Word no more compatible with Abiword than it is today, not as long as microsoft guards that schema.
My point is that XML may be the answer, but only for a very specific set of questions. The rest of the problems surrounding automation remain and are not really impacted by XML's success or failure.
I don't know XML. I used to know HTML. It used to be simple and consistent and easy to manage, too. But I don't know it anymore because it's expanded into this monstrosity that requires validation, formating, and whatnot.
How long will it be before XML, which may be simple and easy to make consistent now, is "extended" into a similar monster, only to be replaced by some other "savior" specification?
Why is it so difficult for us to recognize that, except for the most basic of things, automation is hard. There's no silver bullet. The job is hard, and as soon as we think we've got one thing automated, we're going to try to depend on that thing to automate the next thing. Then we're going to discover that we didn't do such a good job with the first thing and we'll have to go back and fix it.
Automation is hard. There's no silver bullet that will make it easy, not even XML. We may think it's going to solve all of our problems, but it won't. We won't know whether it solves anything until we rely on it. At which point it'll break because it's too simplistic, and we'll have to change it so that it's complicated and not simple and then we'll be again waiting for the next "savior". Call me a skeptic, but I don't think there is one.
Strange, but excellent movie. Tom Stoppard wrote it. It's basically the story of Hamelet told from the perspective of two lesser characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
But of course, it isn't at all about what Hamlet is about. It simply uses Hamlet as a backdrop in order to tell it's story. For a few years, it was absolutely my favorite movie. It still ranks very high.
Why do they need to provide any answer other than "because I want to"?
I can't give you permission to, nor forbid you from asking your question. That's up to you. But I think it's rude and intrusive. Your question implies, I think, that they need to justify what they're doing, instead of contributing to other projects that "starve from lack of developers". If some other project, that they're not intrested in, is starving for developers, that is not their problem.
Now, I could, of course, be misinterpreting what you're asking. You might simply be trying to understand what other features they plan. I don't see anything rude about that question. If that's what you're asking, my apologies. But your question was easily confused because you mentioned starving projects. You don't need to couch a request for a description of features on starving projects.
Because they've got an itch that they want to scratch. It's there itch. They can scratch it however they like. As soon as you put them on your payroll then you can complain about misappropriated effort. As it is, they don't work for you. Until they do, it's really rather intrusive of you to complain about what they do with their own time.
$.02
This answers how TMDA deals with this problem. I don't know how other challenge/response email systems deal with it.
There is an IETF draft which describes how automatic, machine generated responses are supposed to be formatted, so that they can be easily identified as such. The primary author of TMDA (Jason Mastaler) has, I believe, incorporated all of the recommendations of that draft which are applicable to TMDA. So, if other automatic response systems (like TMDA) are also following the recommendations of that draft, then all of these auto responders should be able to interract.
Now, there's no competition and anyone who is addicted to PVR functionality is basically stuck with TiVo. (MythTV not withstanding.) And TiVo now has little reason to fear the loss of customers, so they have less reason to actually improve the product.
I love my TiVo, but this I think this is a bad thing.
Quoted from here
I am not an economist, so forgive my ignorance... BUT, I wonder about whether or not one could argue that the existance of H1B visas had a material impact on the economic recession we're currently in.
.... whatever they're doing, buying new technology is not what they're interested in.
... fill in the blank. But banks sell to consumers. CNN sells to consumers. If the consumers aren't switching to use technology delivery of those services, then the banks and CNN and ... aren't going to buy from Sun (et al).
Here's what I'm thinking, and if you ARE an economist, please correct me!
It's generally accepted that the current recession is a consequence of the fall of the tech sector. Right? And the tech sector fell because of unrealistic P/E ratios on stock prices. In an effort to get those P/E ratios more in line, one of two things had to happen, either the price had to drop or the earnings had to increase. One way to do that is to cut expenses. For almost EVERY company the single biggest expense is human resources. If you can cut labor costs, then you can get your P/E ratios up w/out having to actually sell more.
So Sun, et al, lobby congress and get the H1B visa program passed, and they cut expenses. P/E's can be improved... eventually. First you have to fire all those people. Those people increase the jobless rate. The market sees this, and reacts negatively, putting more pressure on realistic P/E ratios. And now the only way to increase P/E ratios is to actually sell something that someone wants right now. We can't wait anymore because we need to get those P/E ratios fixed now.
Except for the fact that the biggest technology consumers are the technology workers, and larger and larger numbers of them don't have any jobs. And those that do, are worried about their jobs, or are about to lose their jobs, or are accepting pay cuts or
Kaboom! P/E ratios do not get back to a sane level, and the market jumps ship, killing lots of companies and unemploying tons of workers, curtailing the spending of all of those people. Now, couple that with Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and Adelphia.
Of course, you could argue that Sun (et al) doesn't sell to consumers. They sell to banks, to CNN, to
Ok, so I'm an idiot. I know that. Does this hold any water?
Well that's odd then, because I looked up "Children of Dune" on my SA Series2, and I found it also. So the other guy's DirecTiVo and my standalone both found it under "Children of Dune". Wonder why you had trouble...
I assume that the same copyright difficulties that exist for MPAA & MS would also exist for me.
Forgive my ignorance, but how is the US Congress supposed to enact laws other than US laws? If you want to change international laws, you go and lobby those international bodies that can change the laws. If you want to change US laws, you go to the US Congress.
How does complaining to the US Congress about international copyright violations do anything other than try to get the congress to enact stronger US laws?
No but what they're trying to do is equate copying of copyrighted materials with organized crime... even fair use copying of those copyrighted materials. Does this article state that? No, not explicitly but it doesn't take too much reading between the lines to discern that.
Disclaimer: I have copyrighted materials out on the net. I expect the license (GPL) to be upheld. Hence I respect the copyrighted materials of others and I do not violate the terms of their licenses. And in most cases, that means not using their software, music, movies, etc. In the rest of the cases, I pay for a licensed copy.
Still fair use is not copyright violation, no matter what the DMCA says. The DMCA is wrong. IMHO, the best post on this topic was the one that said that the MPAA and MS are citing cases in Russia and China. How exactly is the US DOJ supposed to impact those cases? There is already strong laws against such activity in this country. The ONLY possible conclusion MUST be that the MPAA and MS are trying to create stronger laws against what they see as loopholes in US law. Namely: fair use.
Yes, you're right that this is not explicitly stated in the article. But I think they're threatening fair use, and I wish to be diligent in protecting that doctrine. So if it looks to me like they're implicitly threatening it, even though they aren't explicitly doing so, I'm going to get my guard up. And I think it's ok to do so.
Look at this paragraph:
The article implies that the "morphing" was unintended. Do you think that? I certainly don't.
I think you're probably right that morality is impossible to define. But that's mostly because we expect to find a fine line between right and wrong, and we don't. Still even if that's true, there are some things that are clearly right and some things that are clearly wrong. And, interestinly enough, we find little disagreement to these things in just about every civilization on the planet.
For example, no one contends, so far as I'm aware, that wantonly killing someone is right. There are circumstances around which we allow for taking another persons life (e.g. self defense) but no one would say that randomly taking someone's life without provocation is a good thing. Similarly, no one would contend that lieing is good thing. There are circumstances which might make a lie understandable (e.g. a known child molestor asks the location of your children). But randomly lieing for no reason is generally frowned upon by pretty much everyone.
Now, given that there are some things that we clearly know are wrong. How effective are you at avoiding behaviors that you clearly know are wrong. Have you ever lied just to see if you could get away with it? Have you lied to protect yourself from the consequence of something you know you did, or to pan the responsibility on someone else? Have you ever bit some unsuspecting person's head off because of a bad day at work? Have you ever been lazy and not done work that you know should have been done, but you just didn't feel like it? Put another way, have you ever truly felt sorry for something you did prompting you to apologize to someone?
There are tons of things that pretty much everyone agrees are wrong. Have you done any of them? If so, then you've lived a life that doesn't meet even your own standards.
The question is this: what are you going to do about it? And a completely reasonable answer is: nothing. That answer works just fine right up until you bump into God. You may never bump into God, you may have already done so. But when it happens, it becomes immediately apparent that doing nothing about your unfufilled morality simply won't suffice. I suspect that you already have a sense of this if you've ever said to yourself "I want to live a better life than I'm leading." That's God, in a very subtle way, bumping into you. But still you may not have ever encountered what I'm talking about.
In one sense, I hope that never happens to you. I hope that you get to live blissfully ignorant of how poorly you're doing at meeting your own standards. I hope you get to live your life content and happy. But in another sense, I know that contentment and happiness are impossible if you don't ever become fully aware of your failings. You will spend your entire life trying to justify yourself to others who are trying to justify themselves. You'll spend your entire life bickering about whether or not your life is worthwhile to others who only care about their own lives. You'll spend your entire life stuck in the middle of the worst kind of backstabbing politics that you can imagine. And I do NOT wish this upon you. (For a great picture of this read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.)
So in a real sense, I hope (and pray) that you will be blessed to know your own failings sooner than later. Because that's when you can find the path to getting them fixed. And THEN you can start to see real happiness and real contentment.
This is my challenge to you: forget about the blurry morality. Focus entirely on the obvious right and wrongs. Write down a list of things that are obviously wrong. Write down a list of things that you think are wrong, even if it's not necessarily obvious. Write down a list of things that you think are right. And write down a list of things that are obviously right. Now go out for the next 6 weeks and do the things that are right, and avoid the things that are wrong. No lies. No laziness. No killing. (Hopefully the last one is easy for you.) Pursue kindness, generosity, and and compassion. Try to be perfect based on these standards for 6 weeks and see how you do.
Yes and no. Yes I believe this because someone told me to believe it. But not the someone you think. I believe this because I believe in God and I believe that God told me to trust his word, the Bible.
Now we can argue all day about whether or not its reasonable for me to believe in God, or if I'm just halucinating the existance of God. I'm certainly not going to try and prove to you that he exists. But my inability to prove this to you doesn't imply that I don't believe it. There are a hundred things that I can't prove to you that I still believe. I can't prove to you that I got up at 7:15am. But my experiences (looking at the clock) demand that I believe it even though I can't prove it to you.
That's how it is with God. I believe that he exists even though I can't prove it to you. My experiences with him simply compell me to believe in him regardless of whether or not I can prove it. And those same experiences compell me to believe him when he says to trust in his word. Yes, it was penned by men, but God says that they did a good job of conveying exactly what he wanted to say, and I trust him.
Of course, I can't prove this to you. I don't intend to try. I only want to answer your question of why I believe in the truth of the Bible.
The problem is that we can't uphold the law. We can't. CS Lewis recommends to anyone who seriously wants to be good, to try to do it all the time. Try to be good 100% of the time. Not 99.999% of the time. 100% of the time. Commit yourself to it for 6 weeks. You'll find, I think, that you can't do it. I certainly couldn't.
So what are we to do about the fact that we can't uphold the law, and yet are required to be judged by it? In the history of the world, there has been only one person who upheld the law. That person was Jesus Christ. He upheld the law fully. He, unlike anyone else in the history of the world, can claim his own righteousness. Yet what happened? He was sentanced to an execution, and not just any execution. An excruciatingly painful one. A crucifixion.
Why? Because the penalty for sin, for being unable to uphold the law, is death. That's what the law itself says. So you and I and everyone deserves death, since you and I and everyone has sinned.
That's where Christ comes in. The penalty for sin is death. And that penalty must be paid. Christ's death was the paid penalty for our sins. He lived a sinless life and yet paid the worst kind of sinners penalty imagineable. Because it was a perfect sacrifice (i.e. because Christ was sinless) his death is the paid penalty for all sinners throughout all history. His life will be the life which is judged by the law. But in order to be under the judgement of his life, you must align yourself with him. If you don't, you will be judged by your own life's measurement against the law.
There's much more to this than my over simplified summary. The book of Romans has much to say about it. But it's probably hard to understand out of the context of the entire scripture. I'd recommend, if you're interested, to read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.
The problem with this is it assumes the ability to distinguish the difference between Mystro TV and TiVo (for example). But if people only know Mystro and nothing about TiVo, how will they find the restrictions to be annoying? To them they're not restrictions. They're not capabilities taken away from TiVo. They're improvments to regular TV.
I'm really confused about what you mean by this? Although I've never set it up like this, why can't you simply put maildrop in UserA's .forward and procmail in UserB's .forward?
The answer to his question is, "By using TMDA, of course!". TMDA is an automated whitelist management program. I agree that manually managing whitelists is next to impossible, even at the individual level. But that's why TMDA exists, to automate that process.
And it's currently being tested on a large scale. GMANE is using TMDA as a mechanism of blocking spam for some 3500 mailing lists.
I wish I could rewrite the original question so that it was more clear that TMDA is an automated whitelist management program. Cuz I don't think the guy understood that. And he answered as if the question were suggesting that the ISP manage all their user's whitelists.
$.02
What I hate about it is that if I have to navigate around to different directories (i.e. directories other than the default) it is extremely inefficient.
The windows dialog is better in that it gives you a bunch of defaults that can rapidly take you to common places (e.g. Desktop, My Documents, My Computer).
KDE takes this one step further and allows you to define your own common places. So that if you configure "~/ftpin/" as a common location for you in one application, every other application inherets that common location.
I personally find it incredibly frustrating to navigate around in the gnome file dialog. I typically switch between two directories: ~/ftpin/ and ~/win/windows/Desktop. In GNOME apps, switching between these two locations takes 5 double clicks and lots of drag navigation. In windows this takes 1-2 double clicks and a little navigation (depending on where I'm trying to get to). In KDE it takes 1 double click no matter where I am.
The article mentions that they can't track the original spammers, that all the further that they can get is to the students computers. If they really want to track the spammers can't they track the money?
Which makes me wonder, how do the students get paid? Remaining anonymous is critical to spammers being able to continue doing their thing. How does a spammer actually pay someone w/out being trackable? I can't imagine that they send cash.
I went to a boarding school for High School. There were a lot of folks from Michigan who attended. They liked to call themselves "michiganders". I always called them "michigeese". For some reason, they didn't seem to like that. And I seemed to get beat up a lot.
Cool! "Mere Christianity" is one of my favorite books. Drop me an email, if you want to discuss it.