So, basically, its like signing up for a Rhapsody account, except that the RIAA is under no obligation to actually provide any service. Sounds sweet...for them.
a. GM plants that make money grow on trees.
Hyperinflation FTW b. GM microbes that make violent impotent. IN whatever way is most effective.
Have you watched Serenity? c. GM Animals that hunt and chase fat people.
Fat people have guns
And yet you're puzzled by why digital content producers try so hard to prevent their works
The whole point of this article is they didn't work hard. They didn't work at all. They broadcast their stuff worldwide, and when someone looked at it, they turned to legal threats.
The professor isn't paid to train them for "the real world". He's paid to train them in chemistry. If he wants to train them in the "real world", and put "real world" expectations on them, he can pay them a "real world" salary. Maybe one day he should kick half his students out of the class for no good reason, just so they can experience the "real world" phenomenon of being made redundant.
The email's reaching its destination. It's just that it's destination is then chucking it in the bin. False positives on spam checkers don't really have anything to do with a discussion about network reliability though. The network was up, it was reliable, the bits were delivered where they were supposed to go. What the recipient does with them is their own business.
Basically, because people are willing to pay them and agree to their conditions. If you don't like it, call up your local photography college or what-have-you, and ask them if any of their students want some work. Students are generally less picky about those details, because every job helps build their portfolio.
Media Center should be a separate product, just as Microsoft Office is a separate product.
Nobody would buy it. There's too many alternatives out there. But if MS bundles it, they can up the pricetag on that version to cover development costs, and use their OS monopoly to start getting leverage in another market. Business as usual at Redmond.
While I have to develop for it, I'm going to bitch about it. IE6 is still alive and well, and making up a significant proportion of site hits. It's still a piece of crap, and I still have to take it into consideration when I'm developing. Granted, the flaws I care about are rendering rather than security, but complaining about IE6 is most definitely not "living in the past".
It's also because there are no downmods labeled "factually incorrect", "moronic argument that's been debunked a million times already" or "calling people names isn't going to make your argument any more compelling". When someone's being a dick, and you can't be bothered throwing pearls before swine, there aren't too many options for accurate mods.
Look at all the times when Christianity was at its worst, and its the times when the church was heavily political. Despite what is often said, people don't kill each other over religion. They kill each other over power. It was the same during Roman times, when Christians were persecuted because they denied the divinity of the political ruler; it was the same during the inquisition, where heretics were persecuted because they denied the authority of the Pope - who was a political leader as much as a spiritual one. It's the same as in Islam at the moment, where to defy Islam is to defy the state. If there's no (or little) political power to be gained by controlling religion, then people won't go to extreme measures to ensure they retain control of religion. There's a good reason for separation of church and state, one the Christians should recognise as much as atheists. Politics corrupts the church at least as much as it corrupts politics.
Well, in regards to abortion clinics, it's not because they're showing insensitivity to Christians, it's because pro-lifers think they're committing mass murder. Which is slightly different to being offended.
Try reading the comment before you flame it next time. He's saying that, in the general case, when you release someone else's code, the worst they can do is sue you. He presented a defence against that - by having the code license signed and notarized, they wouldn't have any basis to sue.
In my POV, any group that claims to abhor violence while others perform violence under the same ideology is as evil as the people who actually perform the violent acts.
Right. So my morality is contingent upon the actions of anyone in the world who claims the title of Christian - people that I neither know, nor have any control over? So because, for example, the American government is torturing prisoners in the name of securing democracy, anyone else who believes in the precepts of democracy is tarred with the same brush?
He's talking about members of the church, not the church itself. The members will have the same access to technology as any other cross-section of society.
The problem is this. Patents were never about protecting an idea, or a concept. They were about protecting a particular implementation. Originally, I believe, a patent required a working model or detailed schematic before it would be accepted. It was only that particular design that was protected. If someone else did the same thing using a different method, then your patent didn't affect them.
The problem with Tivo's patent is that it isn't particularly novel, and it's very broad. Yes, the idea of a DVR was probably novel at the time. But if you took an engineer, and asked them "how would you implement a DVR" (and described a DVR too them), it isn't a particularly difficult problem to solve. If that engineer could come up with the design Tivo uses, then the Tivo patent is obvious to a "person having ordinary skill in the art".
The idea behind a patent is to get ideas out in the open. It's a trade with the public - the inventor offers his schematics, and the public gives him a time-limited monopoly. If someone invents something - say a new stronger, lighter alloy - that nobody else knows how to make, then it's not in the public's interest to let the knowledge of how to make it die with him. So they say "we'll guarantee you nobody else will make your alloy, if you give us the process by which you make it". Now, if it's something that any metallurgist worth his salt could whip up in a month or two, then the public would be getting gyped on the deal.
The problem with patents now is that they seem to be more along the lines of "I thought of it first, therefore it's mine", whereas they should be "I built it first, therefore this design is mine". Personally, I think the way to fix patents is to make them more like copyright - patents protect from reverse engineering, but clean-room implementations should be safe.
You've got to be joking. I see more jobs for PHP developers/maintainers than for any other web technologies (with the possible exception of.NET). I also know tonnes of businesses, universities, government departments, etc that run their sites using PHP. It is definitely a corporate thing. It might not be suitable for "enterprise level" (whatever that is) projects - it's easy to get REALLY messy PHP code when you start building something big/complex. But a big, important business does not necessarily necessitate a big, complicated website. And for simple CMS stuff, PHP is as good as anything else, and there's a large pool of developers to pull from.
Re:Gentlemen, start your spambots
on
Yahoo CAPTCHA Hacked
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not really. After a couple of (thousand) runs through, the attacker would have a reasonably accurate database of the questions. They can then analyze the text to find the nearest match to one of the questions in its database.
Even more strange is that people seem to think they can write up these fancy-sounding letters as if they were a lawyer.
What I think is strange is that some people seem to think there is some magical property of lawyers, that makes whatever they write special. If the letter written is true and correct, and legal, then it has all the value of one written by a lawyer. If the letter is false, then it's just as useless no matter who the author is.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically, its like signing up for a Rhapsody account, except that the RIAA is under no obligation to actually provide any service. Sounds sweet...for them.
a. GM plants that make money grow on trees.
Hyperinflation FTW
b. GM microbes that make violent impotent. IN whatever way is most effective.
Have you watched Serenity?
c. GM Animals that hunt and chase fat people.
Fat people have guns
And yet you're puzzled by why digital content producers try so hard to prevent their works
The whole point of this article is they didn't work hard. They didn't work at all. They broadcast their stuff worldwide, and when someone looked at it, they turned to legal threats.
s/don't give a fuck/haven't made up our minds before we started
The professor isn't paid to train them for "the real world". He's paid to train them in chemistry. If he wants to train them in the "real world", and put "real world" expectations on them, he can pay them a "real world" salary. Maybe one day he should kick half his students out of the class for no good reason, just so they can experience the "real world" phenomenon of being made redundant.
I can code C. I don't know anything about construction, pharmaceuticals, irrigation or modern farming.
Coding feeds me. There's no reason it shouldn't be able to feed them too - some of them at least.
The email's reaching its destination. It's just that it's destination is then chucking it in the bin. False positives on spam checkers don't really have anything to do with a discussion about network reliability though. The network was up, it was reliable, the bits were delivered where they were supposed to go. What the recipient does with them is their own business.
http://www.oqo.com/intl/products/index.html
Basically, because people are willing to pay them and agree to their conditions. If you don't like it, call up your local photography college or what-have-you, and ask them if any of their students want some work. Students are generally less picky about those details, because every job helps build their portfolio.
Galations 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Whatever reason people have for circumcision, it's not to conform to Biblical doctrine.
Media Center should be a separate product, just as Microsoft Office is a separate product.
Nobody would buy it. There's too many alternatives out there. But if MS bundles it, they can up the pricetag on that version to cover development costs, and use their OS monopoly to start getting leverage in another market. Business as usual at Redmond.
While I have to develop for it, I'm going to bitch about it. IE6 is still alive and well, and making up a significant proportion of site hits. It's still a piece of crap, and I still have to take it into consideration when I'm developing. Granted, the flaws I care about are rendering rather than security, but complaining about IE6 is most definitely not "living in the past".
It's also because there are no downmods labeled "factually incorrect", "moronic argument that's been debunked a million times already" or "calling people names isn't going to make your argument any more compelling". When someone's being a dick, and you can't be bothered throwing pearls before swine, there aren't too many options for accurate mods.
They lost political power.
Look at all the times when Christianity was at its worst, and its the times when the church was heavily political. Despite what is often said, people don't kill each other over religion. They kill each other over power. It was the same during Roman times, when Christians were persecuted because they denied the divinity of the political ruler; it was the same during the inquisition, where heretics were persecuted because they denied the authority of the Pope - who was a political leader as much as a spiritual one. It's the same as in Islam at the moment, where to defy Islam is to defy the state. If there's no (or little) political power to be gained by controlling religion, then people won't go to extreme measures to ensure they retain control of religion. There's a good reason for separation of church and state, one the Christians should recognise as much as atheists. Politics corrupts the church at least as much as it corrupts politics.
Well, in regards to abortion clinics, it's not because they're showing insensitivity to Christians, it's because pro-lifers think they're committing mass murder. Which is slightly different to being offended.
Yeah, I bet there are more Wiis in the world than PCs
Try reading the comment before you flame it next time. He's saying that, in the general case, when you release someone else's code, the worst they can do is sue you. He presented a defence against that - by having the code license signed and notarized, they wouldn't have any basis to sue.
In my POV, any group that claims to abhor violence while others perform violence under the same ideology is as evil as the people who actually perform the violent acts.
Right. So my morality is contingent upon the actions of anyone in the world who claims the title of Christian - people that I neither know, nor have any control over? So because, for example, the American government is torturing prisoners in the name of securing democracy, anyone else who believes in the precepts of democracy is tarred with the same brush?
He's talking about members of the church, not the church itself. The members will have the same access to technology as any other cross-section of society.
Yeah, but some languages lend themselves to it more than others.
The problem is this. Patents were never about protecting an idea, or a concept. They were about protecting a particular implementation. Originally, I believe, a patent required a working model or detailed schematic before it would be accepted. It was only that particular design that was protected. If someone else did the same thing using a different method, then your patent didn't affect them.
The problem with Tivo's patent is that it isn't particularly novel, and it's very broad. Yes, the idea of a DVR was probably novel at the time. But if you took an engineer, and asked them "how would you implement a DVR" (and described a DVR too them), it isn't a particularly difficult problem to solve. If that engineer could come up with the design Tivo uses, then the Tivo patent is obvious to a "person having ordinary skill in the art".
The idea behind a patent is to get ideas out in the open. It's a trade with the public - the inventor offers his schematics, and the public gives him a time-limited monopoly. If someone invents something - say a new stronger, lighter alloy - that nobody else knows how to make, then it's not in the public's interest to let the knowledge of how to make it die with him. So they say "we'll guarantee you nobody else will make your alloy, if you give us the process by which you make it". Now, if it's something that any metallurgist worth his salt could whip up in a month or two, then the public would be getting gyped on the deal.
The problem with patents now is that they seem to be more along the lines of "I thought of it first, therefore it's mine", whereas they should be "I built it first, therefore this design is mine". Personally, I think the way to fix patents is to make them more like copyright - patents protect from reverse engineering, but clean-room implementations should be safe.
You've got to be joking. I see more jobs for PHP developers/maintainers than for any other web technologies (with the possible exception of .NET). I also know tonnes of businesses, universities, government departments, etc that run their sites using PHP. It is definitely a corporate thing. It might not be suitable for "enterprise level" (whatever that is) projects - it's easy to get REALLY messy PHP code when you start building something big/complex. But a big, important business does not necessarily necessitate a big, complicated website. And for simple CMS stuff, PHP is as good as anything else, and there's a large pool of developers to pull from.
Not really. After a couple of (thousand) runs through, the attacker would have a reasonably accurate database of the questions. They can then analyze the text to find the nearest match to one of the questions in its database.
Because, you know, as long as people TRUST it, it doesn't matter if it ACTUALLY works.
Even more strange is that people seem to think they can write up these fancy-sounding letters as if they were a lawyer.
What I think is strange is that some people seem to think there is some magical property of lawyers, that makes whatever they write special. If the letter written is true and correct, and legal, then it has all the value of one written by a lawyer. If the letter is false, then it's just as useless no matter who the author is.