Meh, my collection of DRM-free (either self-ripped or torrented) can't have it's license revoked, and it'd take 3 harddrive failures for me to lose it all. Plus, if I did through some catastrophe (say, a housefire, which would also destroy your physical collection), re-torrenting is trivial.
DRM is only a problem if you're willing to play their game.
It's not censoring the internet, any more than email blacklists are censoring the internet. If I own a router, I have the right to drop any packets I like. If I choose to drop packets based on reputation score from a robust cryptographic reptuation system, and my network becomes more robust and stable and attracts more customers and money, then everyone wins. If I drop packets based on a crappy system, my network becomes unreliable, everyone leaves and I go out of business. Everyone wins again.
Really, I'm tired of all this crap. Go ahead. Do it. Kill your own economy, fight your own consumers and destroy yourself in an orgy of self-cannibilism.
As a non-American, I almost hope your courts make this stupid decision. Having an economic black-hole of IP-sucking nothingness floating where the United States used to be would be a great object lesson for our countries in not doing the same thing. It seems like logic isn't working, so maybe the object lesson is inevitable.
That's not an assumption. It's a description of where the fault lies. Blacklists are a tool. If you use the tool incorrectly, then it's you who's the problem, not the tool. The solution isn't to bitch about being blacklisted, the solution is to fix the poorly-implemented system.
the police in my country had to remove an erroneous criminal record from someone because it was blocking him from employment
Again, no, the potential employers that were checking the blacklist were blocking. I imagine the police had to remove the erroneous record because it was libellous.
Blacklists can and often DO get considered IN COURT as blocking people
Just because a court treats it as true doesn't mean it is, even if COURT is in all caps.
They do in fact block people, in many instances the blacklists are automatically loaded and many providers do use them cause of the spam problems they're experiencing.
No, blacklists do not block anyone. The providers are blocking people.
Unlike Botox, however, bee venom does not need to be injected, and can be absorbed through the skin naturally as an ingredient of cosmetic skin creme.
Re:The 1980s called, they want their news back.
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 2
I was a kid when that first pirate set came out, and to me, that was a step down for lego. The pirate ships series had the hull in massive brown sections that only had a few studs for connections, and weren't really modular and reusable. The pirate ships were pretty much the only models that, once made, weren't then pulled apart an reused, because the hulls couldn't really be reused for anything but ships.
So no, I wouldn't say there's much difference between the two.
Yeah, IIRC was a typo. But my point is - usenet is still around. So is IRC - just because Facebook is big doesn't mean the others aren't around. And some modern technologies are pretty dang decentralized too - modern bittorrents with magnet links and DHT are about as good as you're going to get in the decentralization race.
As far as I'm concerned:
minor: patches - bugfixes and security issues. No new functionality, won't break backwards compatibility
major: new features, but maintain backwards compatibility
primary: major changes, usually including structural stuff under the hood. No backwards compatibility guarantees
So yeah, I don't know why they never increment the primary (to me, at least, 0 means "beta" or below) but I'd disagree that just because you took 12 years to develop it, it merits a primary version bump. If it maintains backwards compatibility, just keep with the majors.
Ok, can we just stop paying attention to traditional media until it all dies? I don't think I've read an article in the last year that wasn't trying to provoke outrage, fear or hatred through selective reporting, manipulation of data, and gross simplification.
Today, the open internet we once knew is fracturing into a series of gated communities or fiefdoms controlled by giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and to a lesser extent Microsoft.
What, so now it's impossible to start your own website? To run your own services? That's news to me. Just because there are now large, popular sites doesn't mean small, unpopular sites are now non-existent. The internet that we had 30 years ago is still there, it's just nobody uses it. But it's not like, say, the presence of Facebook means IIRC has suddenly been uninvented.
Spam only works because the cost of delivery is so marginal (frequently non-existent if they're using compromised machines to do the mailing) - it doesn't matter if you only get one sucker in a million emails, since those million emails didn't cost you anything. If they cost you a million dollars though, it ceases being profitable.
I seriously never understood this line of reasoning. Because they have a responsibility to their shareholders, corporations are somehow exempt from all moral and ethical responsibility in every other way?
It's not quite like that. It's more like: corporations exist to make profit. Therefore, if we want them to act ethically and morally, we have to create a system (via legislation) that makes it profitable for them to act that way. Expecting them to act morally and ethically without that is a mug's game.
It's essentially the same as the fundamental principles of capitalism: how do we get people to do stuff that's useful for other people? We compensate them, so that we're tapping into the driver of greed instead of the driver of philanthropy, as greed is a more universal and reliable drive than philanthropy.
Because their license was ending and Google's terms weren't acceptable to Apple?
Their license wasn't ending (it still had another year on the clock) and there's been no indication that the terms would have changed if they'd kept the existing license. They couldn't agree to terms when it came to modifying the license to include turn-by-turn navigation.
No, Apple to away Google maps because they didn't want their competitor to have an officially-endorsed presence on their platform (hence why the extra branding rights weren't acceptable). Now Google is relegated to a third-party app the same as everyone else - and I wonder if Google's mapping app would have been acceptable, if Apple's hadn't been such a joke at launch.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low.
On the other hand, based on the evidence from Japan, prohibiting firearms will send the suicide rate skyrocketing. Because, you know, correlation equals causation.
You said you didn't know what the initial spark would be - I said I think it'd be one of the above technologies, because in order to inspire people to go for the stars, you have to be able to get them there, not their kids. I think a generation ship is going to be wildly unsuccessful except as an escape from calamity or extreme deprivation - people just aren't going to want to live in a tin can for the rest of their lives.
steam : Depends: libjpeg-turbo8 but it is not installable
Depends: libpixman-1-0 (>= 0.24.4-1) but 0.22.2-1 is installed
Depends: multiarch-support (>= 2.15-0ubuntu10.2) but 2.13-20ubuntu5.3 is installed
Depends: zenity (>= 3.4.0-0ubuntu4)
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.15) but 2.13-20ubuntu5.3 is installed
Depends: libx11-6 (>= 2:1.4.99.1) but 2:1.4.4-2ubuntu1 is installed
Linux 3.0.0-26-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 5 08:37:56 UTC 2012 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
LSB Version: core-2.0-ia32:core-2.0-noarch:core-3.0-ia32:core-3.0-noarch:core-3.1-ia32:core-3.1-noarch:core-3.2-ia32:core-3.2-noarch:core-4.0-ia32:core-4.0-noarch Distributor ID: LinuxMint Description: Linux Mint 12 KDE Release: 12 Codename: lisa
I'd say you'd need either close-to-light propulsion technology, advanced terraforming technology, or trusted suspended animation to get people to a habitable destination within their lifetimes.
And that they are FRAND licenced, so they don't have a leg to stand on.
The F in FRAND stands for fair, not free. They weren't FRAND licensed - reason being, Apple never licensed them. The question in dispute isn't the cost of the patents going forward, its punitive damage for not paying the FRAND cost upfront. If there's no punitive component to the cost, then there's no disincentive.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, my collection of DRM-free (either self-ripped or torrented) can't have it's license revoked, and it'd take 3 harddrive failures for me to lose it all. Plus, if I did through some catastrophe (say, a housefire, which would also destroy your physical collection), re-torrenting is trivial.
DRM is only a problem if you're willing to play their game.
It's not censoring the internet, any more than email blacklists are censoring the internet. If I own a router, I have the right to drop any packets I like. If I choose to drop packets based on reputation score from a robust cryptographic reptuation system, and my network becomes more robust and stable and attracts more customers and money, then everyone wins. If I drop packets based on a crappy system, my network becomes unreliable, everyone leaves and I go out of business. Everyone wins again.
Really, I'm tired of all this crap. Go ahead. Do it. Kill your own economy, fight your own consumers and destroy yourself in an orgy of self-cannibilism.
As a non-American, I almost hope your courts make this stupid decision. Having an economic black-hole of IP-sucking nothingness floating where the United States used to be would be a great object lesson for our countries in not doing the same thing. It seems like logic isn't working, so maybe the object lesson is inevitable.
She was the first one killed. How exactly do you propose punishing her?
That's not an assumption. It's a description of where the fault lies. Blacklists are a tool. If you use the tool incorrectly, then it's you who's the problem, not the tool. The solution isn't to bitch about being blacklisted, the solution is to fix the poorly-implemented system.
the police in my country had to remove an erroneous criminal record from someone because it was blocking him from employment
Again, no, the potential employers that were checking the blacklist were blocking. I imagine the police had to remove the erroneous record because it was libellous.
Blacklists can and often DO get considered IN COURT as blocking people
Just because a court treats it as true doesn't mean it is, even if COURT is in all caps.
They do in fact block people, in many instances the blacklists are automatically loaded and many providers do use them cause of the spam problems they're experiencing.
No, blacklists do not block anyone. The providers are blocking people.
Why not just read the summary?
Unlike Botox, however, bee venom does not need to be injected, and can be absorbed through the skin naturally as an ingredient of cosmetic skin creme.
I was a kid when that first pirate set came out, and to me, that was a step down for lego. The pirate ships series had the hull in massive brown sections that only had a few studs for connections, and weren't really modular and reusable. The pirate ships were pretty much the only models that, once made, weren't then pulled apart an reused, because the hulls couldn't really be reused for anything but ships.
So no, I wouldn't say there's much difference between the two.
- Email problems with the HR drone
- Skype call interview organised for a time not convenient for him
- Network issues during the call
Um, cry me a river?
Yeah, IIRC was a typo. But my point is - usenet is still around. So is IRC - just because Facebook is big doesn't mean the others aren't around. And some modern technologies are pretty dang decentralized too - modern bittorrents with magnet links and DHT are about as good as you're going to get in the decentralization race.
As far as I'm concerned:
minor: patches - bugfixes and security issues. No new functionality, won't break backwards compatibility
major: new features, but maintain backwards compatibility
primary: major changes, usually including structural stuff under the hood. No backwards compatibility guarantees
So yeah, I don't know why they never increment the primary (to me, at least, 0 means "beta" or below) but I'd disagree that just because you took 12 years to develop it, it merits a primary version bump. If it maintains backwards compatibility, just keep with the majors.
You can enter a customer message when you send the request.
Ok, can we just stop paying attention to traditional media until it all dies? I don't think I've read an article in the last year that wasn't trying to provoke outrage, fear or hatred through selective reporting, manipulation of data, and gross simplification.
Today, the open internet we once knew is fracturing into a series of gated communities or fiefdoms controlled by giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and to a lesser extent Microsoft.
What, so now it's impossible to start your own website? To run your own services? That's news to me. Just because there are now large, popular sites doesn't mean small, unpopular sites are now non-existent. The internet that we had 30 years ago is still there, it's just nobody uses it. But it's not like, say, the presence of Facebook means IIRC has suddenly been uninvented.
Uh, you could always contact people who hadn't approved you. It was called a friend request.
Spam only works because the cost of delivery is so marginal (frequently non-existent if they're using compromised machines to do the mailing) - it doesn't matter if you only get one sucker in a million emails, since those million emails didn't cost you anything. If they cost you a million dollars though, it ceases being profitable.
I seriously never understood this line of reasoning. Because they have a responsibility to their shareholders, corporations are somehow exempt from all moral and ethical responsibility in every other way?
It's not quite like that. It's more like: corporations exist to make profit. Therefore, if we want them to act ethically and morally, we have to create a system (via legislation) that makes it profitable for them to act that way. Expecting them to act morally and ethically without that is a mug's game.
It's essentially the same as the fundamental principles of capitalism: how do we get people to do stuff that's useful for other people? We compensate them, so that we're tapping into the driver of greed instead of the driver of philanthropy, as greed is a more universal and reliable drive than philanthropy.
Because their license was ending and Google's terms weren't acceptable to Apple?
Their license wasn't ending (it still had another year on the clock) and there's been no indication that the terms would have changed if they'd kept the existing license. They couldn't agree to terms when it came to modifying the license to include turn-by-turn navigation.
No, Apple to away Google maps because they didn't want their competitor to have an officially-endorsed presence on their platform (hence why the extra branding rights weren't acceptable). Now Google is relegated to a third-party app the same as everyone else - and I wonder if Google's mapping app would have been acceptable, if Apple's hadn't been such a joke at launch.
Sorta like men walking on the moon. Reach, grasp, exceeding, etc.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low.
On the other hand, based on the evidence from Japan, prohibiting firearms will send the suicide rate skyrocketing. Because, you know, correlation equals causation.
You said you didn't know what the initial spark would be - I said I think it'd be one of the above technologies, because in order to inspire people to go for the stars, you have to be able to get them there, not their kids. I think a generation ship is going to be wildly unsuccessful except as an escape from calamity or extreme deprivation - people just aren't going to want to live in a tin can for the rest of their lives.
Failed on mine:
steam : Depends: libjpeg-turbo8 but it is not installable
Depends: libpixman-1-0 (>= 0.24.4-1) but 0.22.2-1 is installed
Depends: multiarch-support (>= 2.15-0ubuntu10.2) but 2.13-20ubuntu5.3 is installed
Depends: zenity (>= 3.4.0-0ubuntu4)
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.15) but 2.13-20ubuntu5.3 is installed
Depends: libx11-6 (>= 2:1.4.99.1) but 2:1.4.4-2ubuntu1 is installed
Linux 3.0.0-26-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 5 08:37:56 UTC 2012 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
LSB Version: core-2.0-ia32:core-2.0-noarch:core-3.0-ia32:core-3.0-noarch:core-3.1-ia32:core-3.1-noarch:core-3.2-ia32:core-3.2-noarch:core-4.0-ia32:core-4.0-noarch
Distributor ID: LinuxMint
Description: Linux Mint 12 KDE
Release: 12
Codename: lisa
I'd say you'd need either close-to-light propulsion technology, advanced terraforming technology, or trusted suspended animation to get people to a habitable destination within their lifetimes.
Because an earthlike planet is so useful if we're never going to actually get any humans there
And that they are FRAND licenced, so they don't have a leg to stand on.
The F in FRAND stands for fair, not free. They weren't FRAND licensed - reason being, Apple never licensed them. The question in dispute isn't the cost of the patents going forward, its punitive damage for not paying the FRAND cost upfront. If there's no punitive component to the cost, then there's no disincentive.