Yes, and the costs of those patents are absorbed as part of the total cost of the car. The cheapest new car I see is around $16,000AUD. How much exactly are you willing to pay for your software?
You can bet that if Labour had been in power at the time, they would have done exactly what the Liberals have done, and the Liberals would have been bitching about them kow-towing to the US. Saying "no" to the world's only superpower is not a good idea for a smaller country, particular with the sort of attitudes at the top these days.
That's not email being intrusive, that's a manager being a dick. Its just the same as a manager insisting you keep your mobile phone on 24/7 or any other form of communication. Based solely on technical aspects, email is much less intrusive than most modern forms of communication.
If it can be done, someone will do it, regardless if it should be done or not. If Google doesn't want this sort of thing done with GMail, then there is obviously a security hole in GMail. Google should work at fixing the interface to GMail so it can't be used in this way. Any other method - EULAs, legal threats, etc - won't cut it. People will still use the tools, even if they're illegal or in violation of a EULA.
"Bridge to Terabithia"??? I remember this being read to our class by my teacher in primary school, and I went to a Christian school. This was quite a while ago now, but IIRC, its a story about two kids playing games in a make-believe kingdom. I certainly can't remember any occultism in it.
Some asshat just thinks the concept it's impure and may cause bugs...wth? It's my decision
Damn straight it is. You want the hook? Use the old kernels that still have it. Or download the kernel source, and stick the hook back in yourself. One of the nice things about Open Source software is if you don't like a decision the developers have made, you can fix it yourself if you are sufficiently motivated.
Australia under little Johnny has largely abandoned its responsibilities to refugees, and now treats them as criminals and "queue jumpers" until proven innocent
Not accurate. Australia is treating asylum seekers as illegal immigrants until it is proven they are refugees. Mixed in here are legitimate refugees, and people trying to cheat the system. If you can think of a better way to seperate the cheats and the refugees, I'm sure everyone would listen.
Copyright infringement isn't the business of the state. Copyright infringement is a civil offence; it is up to the wronger party to claim damages and press suit. Taxpayer's money should not be used to fund a corporation's civil suit.
Yahoo! didn't sell the items to the French. It listed them as auctionable items. If Yahoo! had shipped the items to a French address, then I could see that it would be Yahoo's fault. But as it stands (according to my reading of the article), the problem isn't with Yahoo! selling items; it's with them listing items in places the French can see. Unless Yahoo! explicitly blocks the French from viewing the.com portal (How exactly?) there is no way to comply without removing the items from the listings viewable by the rest of the world.
No, it means that if you have a business presence in a country, you have to obey that country's laws. An online wine merchant does not break the laws of Saudi Arabia unless it does business there.
Which is fine, if you sell only one thing. But what happens if your business is more general? Say if amazon.com starts selling wine, but doesn't list the wine on amazon.com.sa. Should Saudi law then be able to restrict Amazon from selling wine to the rest of the world because of their local law? Or should it stop selling books to Saudis just because it also sells wine in other parts of the world?
The french site doesn't sell Nazi memorabilia - the French are suing www.yahoo.com - the American brand of the portal. Now yes, they are parts of the same company, but the part of the company serving France has complied with their laws. The problem is the French are going to the American site to get things legal in America, but illegal in France.
Internet-to-Real analogies are always a bit dubious, but this is roughly analagous to a franchise that has a presence in both America and France - with French tourists coming over to America to purchase services from the American franchises that the French stores don't offer.
Even ignoring that, look at the more general repurcussions of this decision: it means that a site that violates the law of *any* country is liable. That's not a good situation to being, especially given that many countries laws contradict those of other countries.
Yeah, but they're trying to enforce it on a non-French entity. That'd be like, say, America trying to arrest a foreign citizen for reverse engineering a DVD encryption method (just a random example chosen from thin air).
It seems to me that many journalists these days don't actually investigate or research anything, they just take industry or political press releases and report the spin as fact. Or am I too cynical?
Definately not. I took a Journalism class at University last semester, and some of our exercises involved doing exactly that - building a story around a press release.
Not ASP, but if you use ASP.NET you might have problems.
I had to use ASP.NET for an assignment while at University. I actually liked the language; I think it's extremely neat and easy to maintain. But some of the controls that render as HTML/Javscript (I'm particularly thinking of a paging control) don't work under Mozilla - or at least, they didn't when I was doing my assignment; Mozilla might have added workarounds by now.
I made all the same arguments in another thread a little while ago.
I think it's pretty obvious that what the middle-eastern terrorists are irritated about is not Christians; if so, why attack America? There are other countries that are more overtly Christian, that actually have Christianity as a national religion. The countries that produce these terrorists are all countries where America has stuck its nose in. The quickest way to get two people angry at you, is try to settle matters when they're having a fight. Ditto for countries. If two nations are in the middle of having a great big spat, and you come and stick your peacekeeping forces in the middle of it, they're both going to end up pissed off at you. Now, it's up for debate whether it is more moral of America to use its military power to enforce an artificial peace, or to keep its armies to itself, but no matter which way you look at it, terrorism is a natural repurcussion of interfering in others nations' internal affairs.
That the early Catholic church was a political power is well known. I list some of its motivations for stuff like the crusades in my other thread; fear of the Turks, who were a rising power at the time, the wish to conglomerate the two seperate churches (and what better way than through a common enemy?).
It is difficult to prove my assertion: trying to prove another persons motivation is impossible. The best you can do is outline the possible motivations, and indicate which seems more likely. When there are natives and invaders in a single country, and antagonism between the two, is it more likely the antagonism exists because of religion, or the fact of an outsider's presence in the native's country?
Bull. None of them would give a stuff about America, if America removed its presence from their country. They don't hate America because of its religion; they hate America because of its politics. Religious differences are just handy rallying points for attracting people willing to sacrifice themselves.
In fact, the same thing can be said of the early Catholic church. What people don't understand when talking about the Catholic church in this period is that it was just as much a political power as a religious one. How many of the "kill the unbeliever" fazes where motivated by religion, and how many by politics, with religion used to deliver inflamatory rhetoric from the pulpit?
But now is too late for Java. It already has a reputation. Nobody I know considers Java an application language, and it's primarily because of it's GUI - non-native widgets, and slow response. Even if it's now improving, and it is, it lost the lead, and its gonna be tough for it to play catch-up.
Well, the crackers *could* have inserted a malicious payload into the game. On the other hand, the manufacturers *certainly* have. Not to mention that cracking groups usually do that sort of stuff for cred, and distributing viruses wouldn't do much for that. Plus the sad fact that I trust the integrity of crackers more than I do the integrity of a publishing house.
It just goes to show you - the only safe software to install is pirated software. If you care at all for the security of your machine, you should not install legitimate software - use the ISO you downloaded off Kazaa.
Seriously, in the not-too-distant future, I imagine the first thing I do after I buy a new game is to go download the pirated version.
Without religion, we would have far less barbaric acts.
No, we'd have just the same number of barbaric acts; they'd just have different excuses. Look at Northern Ireland, the Crusades, Al Qaeda, take your pick. They were all, at least in part, motivated by political/social concerns.
In Northern Ireland, you had the rich, English, whom the Irish considered invaders, and the Irish. They each had a different religion; catholic and protestant Christianity. But did they start killing each other because of religious differences, or because one group had taken control of the others country?
Or Al Qaeda? Is the motivation behind their attacks a hatred of Christianity by Muslims? Or is it political - that they want the US to stop interfering in their country?
The place when things most often turn violent, it seems, is where politics and religion mix. Politics provide a motivation, and religion provides a difference - and if you can convince people the enemy is "different", then it's easier to convince them they're not really human, and it's not really wrong to kill them.
Which is where the Crusades come in, situated in the heyday of combined political/religious power. The motivations behind the crusades were pretty much all political; the catholic church wanted more land, they wanted to congomerate the eastern and western divisions of the church, and they were afraid the Turks wouldn't be as friendly as the Muslims.
If there was no religion, these motivations would still exist. There'd just be other means of emphasizing difference, other means of whipping people into a frenzy. Race, for example. But funny thing, nobody ever says "man, if we were all the same race, there wouldn't be any more massacres". I wonder why that is? Could it be because it's not politically correct, while religion-bashing is the modern, rationalistic thing to do.
I liked Pool of Radiance's codewheel. It had a whole stack of wierd runes from within the game. The stupid thing was, while there were heaps of combinations on the wheel, the game itself only asked for about 10. I quickly had those memorized; in fact when I booted up the game last year for a bit of nostalgia, I could still remember which runes meant "Dragon", "Vulcan" and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and the costs of those patents are absorbed as part of the total cost of the car. The cheapest new car I see is around $16,000AUD. How much exactly are you willing to pay for your software?
You can bet that if Labour had been in power at the time, they would have done exactly what the Liberals have done, and the Liberals would have been bitching about them kow-towing to the US. Saying "no" to the world's only superpower is not a good idea for a smaller country, particular with the sort of attitudes at the top these days.
That's not email being intrusive, that's a manager being a dick. Its just the same as a manager insisting you keep your mobile phone on 24/7 or any other form of communication. Based solely on technical aspects, email is much less intrusive than most modern forms of communication.
If it can be done, someone will do it, regardless if it should be done or not. If Google doesn't want this sort of thing done with GMail, then there is obviously a security hole in GMail. Google should work at fixing the interface to GMail so it can't be used in this way. Any other method - EULAs, legal threats, etc - won't cut it. People will still use the tools, even if they're illegal or in violation of a EULA.
"Bridge to Terabithia"??? I remember this being read to our class by my teacher in primary school, and I went to a Christian school. This was quite a while ago now, but IIRC, its a story about two kids playing games in a make-believe kingdom. I certainly can't remember any occultism in it.
Some asshat just thinks the concept it's impure and may cause bugs...wth? It's my decision
Damn straight it is. You want the hook? Use the old kernels that still have it. Or download the kernel source, and stick the hook back in yourself. One of the nice things about Open Source software is if you don't like a decision the developers have made, you can fix it yourself if you are sufficiently motivated.
Australia under little Johnny has largely abandoned its responsibilities to refugees, and now treats them as criminals and "queue jumpers" until proven innocent
Not accurate. Australia is treating asylum seekers as illegal immigrants until it is proven they are refugees. Mixed in here are legitimate refugees, and people trying to cheat the system. If you can think of a better way to seperate the cheats and the refugees, I'm sure everyone would listen.
Copyright infringement isn't the business of the state. Copyright infringement is a civil offence; it is up to the wronger party to claim damages and press suit. Taxpayer's money should not be used to fund a corporation's civil suit.
Yahoo! didn't sell the items to the French. It listed them as auctionable items. If Yahoo! had shipped the items to a French address, then I could see that it would be Yahoo's fault. But as it stands (according to my reading of the article), the problem isn't with Yahoo! selling items; it's with them listing items in places the French can see. Unless Yahoo! explicitly blocks the French from viewing the .com portal (How exactly?) there is no way to comply without removing the items from the listings viewable by the rest of the world.
No, it means that if you have a business presence in a country, you have to obey that country's laws. An online wine merchant does not break the laws of Saudi Arabia unless it does business there.
Which is fine, if you sell only one thing. But what happens if your business is more general? Say if amazon.com starts selling wine, but doesn't list the wine on amazon.com.sa. Should Saudi law then be able to restrict Amazon from selling wine to the rest of the world because of their local law? Or should it stop selling books to Saudis just because it also sells wine in other parts of the world?
The french site doesn't sell Nazi memorabilia - the French are suing www.yahoo.com - the American brand of the portal. Now yes, they are parts of the same company, but the part of the company serving France has complied with their laws. The problem is the French are going to the American site to get things legal in America, but illegal in France.
Internet-to-Real analogies are always a bit dubious, but this is roughly analagous to a franchise that has a presence in both America and France - with French tourists coming over to America to purchase services from the American franchises that the French stores don't offer.
Even ignoring that, look at the more general repurcussions of this decision: it means that a site that violates the law of *any* country is liable. That's not a good situation to being, especially given that many countries laws contradict those of other countries.
Yeah, but they're trying to enforce it on a non-French entity. That'd be like, say, America trying to arrest a foreign citizen for reverse engineering a DVD encryption method (just a random example chosen from thin air).
It seems to me that many journalists these days don't actually investigate or research anything, they just take industry or political press releases and report the spin as fact. Or am I too cynical?
Definately not. I took a Journalism class at University last semester, and some of our exercises involved doing exactly that - building a story around a press release.
o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology
So you're not allowed to make it, or buy it (which would be trafficking), but you're allowed to have it?
Not ASP, but if you use ASP.NET you might have problems.
I had to use ASP.NET for an assignment while at University. I actually liked the language; I think it's extremely neat and easy to maintain. But some of the controls that render as HTML/Javscript (I'm particularly thinking of a paging control) don't work under Mozilla - or at least, they didn't when I was doing my assignment; Mozilla might have added workarounds by now.
I made all the same arguments in another thread a little while ago.
I think it's pretty obvious that what the middle-eastern terrorists are irritated about is not Christians; if so, why attack America? There are other countries that are more overtly Christian, that actually have Christianity as a national religion. The countries that produce these terrorists are all countries where America has stuck its nose in. The quickest way to get two people angry at you, is try to settle matters when they're having a fight. Ditto for countries. If two nations are in the middle of having a great big spat, and you come and stick your peacekeeping forces in the middle of it, they're both going to end up pissed off at you. Now, it's up for debate whether it is more moral of America to use its military power to enforce an artificial peace, or to keep its armies to itself, but no matter which way you look at it, terrorism is a natural repurcussion of interfering in others nations' internal affairs.
That the early Catholic church was a political power is well known. I list some of its motivations for stuff like the crusades in my other thread; fear of the Turks, who were a rising power at the time, the wish to conglomerate the two seperate churches (and what better way than through a common enemy?).
It is difficult to prove my assertion: trying to prove another persons motivation is impossible. The best you can do is outline the possible motivations, and indicate which seems more likely. When there are natives and invaders in a single country, and antagonism between the two, is it more likely the antagonism exists because of religion, or the fact of an outsider's presence in the native's country?
Their "reason" is religious fantacism
Bull. None of them would give a stuff about America, if America removed its presence from their country. They don't hate America because of its religion; they hate America because of its politics. Religious differences are just handy rallying points for attracting people willing to sacrifice themselves.
In fact, the same thing can be said of the early Catholic church. What people don't understand when talking about the Catholic church in this period is that it was just as much a political power as a religious one. How many of the "kill the unbeliever" fazes where motivated by religion, and how many by politics, with religion used to deliver inflamatory rhetoric from the pulpit?
But now is too late for Java. It already has a reputation. Nobody I know considers Java an application language, and it's primarily because of it's GUI - non-native widgets, and slow response. Even if it's now improving, and it is, it lost the lead, and its gonna be tough for it to play catch-up.
Hey, I'll have a Creative Writing degree in 3 months. Hire me!
Which is real handy, if you want to wait four years between flights.
(I can never remember whether the US term of office is three or four years, one or the other Im sure)
Well, the crackers *could* have inserted a malicious payload into the game. On the other hand, the manufacturers *certainly* have. Not to mention that cracking groups usually do that sort of stuff for cred, and distributing viruses wouldn't do much for that. Plus the sad fact that I trust the integrity of crackers more than I do the integrity of a publishing house.
It just goes to show you - the only safe software to install is pirated software. If you care at all for the security of your machine, you should not install legitimate software - use the ISO you downloaded off Kazaa.
Seriously, in the not-too-distant future, I imagine the first thing I do after I buy a new game is to go download the pirated version.
Without religion, we would have far less barbaric acts.
No, we'd have just the same number of barbaric acts; they'd just have different excuses. Look at Northern Ireland, the Crusades, Al Qaeda, take your pick. They were all, at least in part, motivated by political/social concerns.
In Northern Ireland, you had the rich, English, whom the Irish considered invaders, and the Irish. They each had a different religion; catholic and protestant Christianity. But did they start killing each other because of religious differences, or because one group had taken control of the others country?
Or Al Qaeda? Is the motivation behind their attacks a hatred of Christianity by Muslims? Or is it political - that they want the US to stop interfering in their country?
The place when things most often turn violent, it seems, is where politics and religion mix. Politics provide a motivation, and religion provides a difference - and if you can convince people the enemy is "different", then it's easier to convince them they're not really human, and it's not really wrong to kill them.
Which is where the Crusades come in, situated in the heyday of combined political/religious power. The motivations behind the crusades were pretty much all political; the catholic church wanted more land, they wanted to congomerate the eastern and western divisions of the church, and they were afraid the Turks wouldn't be as friendly as the Muslims.
If there was no religion, these motivations would still exist. There'd just be other means of emphasizing difference, other means of whipping people into a frenzy. Race, for example. But funny thing, nobody ever says "man, if we were all the same race, there wouldn't be any more massacres". I wonder why that is? Could it be because it's not politically correct, while religion-bashing is the modern, rationalistic thing to do.
I liked Pool of Radiance's codewheel. It had a whole stack of wierd runes from within the game. The stupid thing was, while there were heaps of combinations on the wheel, the game itself only asked for about 10. I quickly had those memorized; in fact when I booted up the game last year for a bit of nostalgia, I could still remember which runes meant "Dragon", "Vulcan" and the like.
"hallowed antiquity" being the 1930s, when the gold standard was abolished?