The premise of the law is laudible, but rather than have everything related to them shovelled down the memory hole, lest someone googles their names and decides not to give them a second chance, wouldn't it be easier if they simply changed their names?
They have no choice but to continue fighting. Their entire existence is based on monopolistic control over the copying and distribution of their content. They can no more willingly accept the internet or personal copying than Turkeys can accept Christmas.
Well with the European Parliament being bought off by the large music and movie cartels, such that somone who is caught downloading a few dodgy torrents is kicked off the internet, and can no longer spend ANY money online, I'd say all those bricks & mortar distribution points may well see a resurgence in use!
Nice to see those large monopolistic bastards and their political bitches doing something for the little people, no?
>If they could permanently get rid of Quicktime, I'd be a happy camper.
Windows 7 has native support for Quicktime files through Windows Media Player - and Explorer - with thumbnails and everything! Sounds like your dream's come true.
"On Thursday, Polo Ralph Lauren released the following statement about the retouched ad: "For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
Well there was, in the BB thread, an opinion put forward that the ad (as it was presented to Photoshop Disasters and then to Boing Boing) is a hoax and the result of a photoshop perspective transformation. In that thread, the poster shows the result of the reversal of this and the model looks far more 'human'.
If you notice, the black bars down the side of the image in the story link become thicker at the bottom of the image.
>I think it's totally wrong to cater to the "lowest common denominator".
Fortunately, for the most part, the law agrees. In the UK at least, the standard is not someone with an IQ smaller than their shoe-size, but that of a "reasonable person".
Would a 'reasonable person' be confused between the Apple Inc. logo and the Woolworth's logo? (Speaking as someone who thinks they are one) Fuck no! It's a 'W' for one thing. It's green for another. And they don't stick it on over-priced computers for a third. So where could the confusion exist? They're in totally different markets. Trademarks only apply in areas of trade - Apple doesn't own the mark of an apple everywhere, in all places for all time. Unless Apple is moving into the business of food retailing, there is no case to answer - and if it ever did, Woolworths would be the one with a case.
The porn channel logo is even less of an issue. It looks nothing remotely like the Apple logo and Apple has made it very clear they don't even like naughty words on their iPhones, let alone porn. No confusion. No case.
Part of military training is to counter people's natural tendency toward empathy. It's no good asking someone to kill another human being when they view them as the same or similar to themselves. Dehumanisation of the enemy is a fundemental requirement when training an army.
It always make me wonder, when I hear people here (in the UK) saying all these ferral youths and ASBO kids would be better human beings if they were subject to National Service, what exactly they think military training is really all about. Like we need kids who can garotte you with their shag-bands.
Then again, when you have governments and societies (like the UK (broadly)) which say that murder is bad, knife and gun crime is a horrendous thing, and that street crime should be stamped out hard, but they also train people to kill other human beings all the while calling them 'Heroes', you can't exactly expect joined-up-thinking.
Kill for yourself, you're a psycho, a murderer, a blight on society. Kill for your government and you're "our brave boys and girls" and a "hero".
>Until USB 3.0 ports are all over computers everywhere, USB 2.0 will be alive and kicking.
USB 2.0 WILL remain alive and kicking - it's supposed to. You don't need USB3's bandwidth for keyboards and mice and the like. The fact that USB3 devices can be used with USB2 ports (and cables) - albeit at USB2 speeds - means that they've also avoided the trap Firewire fell into. Seems like they're doing it right.
Since I'm not a fan of Apple, its over-priced, locked-in and locked-down douchebaggery, though... it's all no use to me, except to wish i could get Bloom, Trope and AIR for my PC.
It has to be said, though that Eno's definitely nerd-newsworthy in himself; his involvement in the Long Now foundation, his interest in cybernetics - generative methods of creating art and music - all seem fairly relevant. (Not to mention his awesome music).
Much of the discussion in this thread seems very similar to what I used to hear from my friends when I was younger, regarding my appreciation of the Eno, though (my friends were a little politer in their dismissiveness, but the sentiment was the same). It's really worth remembering to reign in the fanboism, Rob! XD
>Well, if you're not wearing pants in public perhaps it _would_ be a good idea if the proper authorities were notified?
I know we live in a rampant consumer culture, but I wasn't aware we'd gone as far as designating Calvin Klein or Victoria's Secret as 'proper authorities'.
You also don't need a license to listen to BBC radio. The license fee applies to people using TV receivers. You can stop paying the license fee and continue listening to the radio without fear of consequences and in good conscience.
I knew as soon as the Murdoch junta declared their intent to charge for internet news that the BBC would be attacked in the near future.
Every time I hear those people crying for the end of the license fee, I see the world dominated by those rich media oligarchs like Murdoch and his unholy spawn, and wonder why they seem to think is a desirable alternative.
>It's not an intelligence boost, just a way of coping with a problem.
In other words: it's focus. The equivalent of a retreat - buggering off to some cave to contemplate the mysteries of life - why it's so unpleasant, etc. because you NEED to come to some sort of understanding of whatever it is that's going on with your life in order to move on.
It's a koan - a spiritual dilemma which MUST be surmounted/resolved/transcended before ANYTHING else can be done, before life can go on.
A crisis, which requires intense contemplation to the exclusion of all else. Which isn't strictly true, because a healthy balance is needed to resolve any issue: forgetting the problem, gaining new experiences, doing thing entirely unrelated.
I've suffered from depression and despite all my intense contemplation of why and what was going on that was causing me to be depressed, additional diverse experiences, exposure to differing thinking, seeming unconnected phenomena was crucial in gaining any insight - as was just forgetting about things for a bit. Usually answers came quite unexpectedly when the issue was entirely out of mind. Of course, the focus was necessary, but so was the letting go.
These days I try to avoid deep intense analytical thought - and I think I have more insight. Analytical thought can only take you so far - at a certain point you're merely re-arranging the furniture, where what you need is creativity and insight. The trick I think is to recognice the limitations of each and apply them appropriately. And in all things, apply balance.
I think the problem is that the life-long sentence of universal stigmatisation that can occur for giving the keys in some circumstances - sex offender - even if it's just an image of a 17-year-old's boobies or a sex act between people of legal age (but not over 18) - just cannot compare to a few, even several years in prison for 'forgetting' your encryption key.
At least once you're out after a RIPA prosecution, you can rejoin society. If you're a 'sex offender' (whatever the poor justification) the government wants you to be forever excluded from society and stigmatised; your sentence will never end.
>the Times (or, for non-Brits, the London Times) is a serious newspaper
This would be the newspaper that claimed public interest in revealing the identity of the anonymous police blogger, stopping his inside information from seeing the light of day and reaching the public, yes?
The Times at one time was not owned by Murdoch. It was a serious newspaper. He bought it and the rot began.
Winsxs doesn't necessarily contain that much data though. Most of the files in there are links to files elsewhere on the hd. Sometimes the same files counted multiple times. The size of winsxs that windows reports comes from the sum of all the files linked to.
I was disappointed in the response by Trading Standards, who compared to other consumer protection bodies around the world are generally good eggs:
"The Trading Standards Institute said that it could not comment on whether such letters were standard across the industry, but that it could understand that Apple would want to protect its reputation by trying to reach a confidential settlement."
Apple isn't trying to protect its reputation. Apple's reputation INCLUDES exploding iPods - albeit a pretty small number of them. What Apple's trying to do by gagging people whose iPods explode is FALSIFY its reputation; making it appear that the problem doesn't exist.
I hate to say it but, there appears to be a little wriggling worm at the center of that nice shiny, tasty-looking apple.
Slashdot Mirror
The premise of the law is laudible, but rather than have everything related to them shovelled down the memory hole, lest someone googles their names and decides not to give them a second chance, wouldn't it be easier if they simply changed their names?
They have no choice but to continue fighting. Their entire existence is based on monopolistic control over the copying and distribution of their content. They can no more willingly accept the internet or personal copying than Turkeys can accept Christmas.
Want to keep your citizens in line, with false statements and a warped view of the world? There's an App for that.
>They, like the media conglomerates (RIAA and MPAA), are trying to change what copyright law actually is.
Copyright has always been about one thing: control over things that are not 'naturally' controllable.
>When FW1600/3200 gets out of door, it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 too
I'm sure you're right. Unfortunately it's Betamax vs VHS all over again and it doesn't look like changing.
>Why should game stores stick around?
Well with the European Parliament being bought off by the large music and movie cartels, such that somone who is caught downloading a few dodgy torrents is kicked off the internet, and can no longer spend ANY money online, I'd say all those bricks & mortar distribution points may well see a resurgence in use!
Nice to see those large monopolistic bastards and their political bitches doing something for the little people, no?
>If they could permanently get rid of Quicktime, I'd be a happy camper. Windows 7 has native support for Quicktime files through Windows Media Player - and Explorer - with thumbnails and everything! Sounds like your dream's come true.
Please mod my parent post down - as the other replies point out, events have moved on:
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2009/10/blog_and_ralph_lauren_fight_over_skinny_model_ad.php
"On Thursday, Polo Ralph Lauren released the following statement about the retouched ad: "For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
Well there was, in the BB thread, an opinion put forward that the ad (as it was presented to Photoshop Disasters and then to Boing Boing) is a hoax and the result of a photoshop perspective transformation. In that thread, the poster shows the result of the reversal of this and the model looks far more 'human'.
If you notice, the black bars down the side of the image in the story link become thicker at the bottom of the image.
>I think it's totally wrong to cater to the "lowest common denominator".
Fortunately, for the most part, the law agrees. In the UK at least, the standard is not someone with an IQ smaller than their shoe-size, but that of a "reasonable person".
Would a 'reasonable person' be confused between the Apple Inc. logo and the Woolworth's logo? (Speaking as someone who thinks they are one) Fuck no! It's a 'W' for one thing. It's green for another. And they don't stick it on over-priced computers for a third. So where could the confusion exist? They're in totally different markets. Trademarks only apply in areas of trade - Apple doesn't own the mark of an apple everywhere, in all places for all time. Unless Apple is moving into the business of food retailing, there is no case to answer - and if it ever did, Woolworths would be the one with a case.
The porn channel logo is even less of an issue. It looks nothing remotely like the Apple logo and Apple has made it very clear they don't even like naughty words on their iPhones, let alone porn. No confusion. No case.
Part of military training is to counter people's natural tendency toward empathy. It's no good asking someone to kill another human being when they view them as the same or similar to themselves. Dehumanisation of the enemy is a fundemental requirement when training an army.
It always make me wonder, when I hear people here (in the UK) saying all these ferral youths and ASBO kids would be better human beings if they were subject to National Service, what exactly they think military training is really all about. Like we need kids who can garotte you with their shag-bands.
Then again, when you have governments and societies (like the UK (broadly)) which say that murder is bad, knife and gun crime is a horrendous thing, and that street crime should be stamped out hard, but they also train people to kill other human beings all the while calling them 'Heroes', you can't exactly expect joined-up-thinking.
Kill for yourself, you're a psycho, a murderer, a blight on society. Kill for your government and you're "our brave boys and girls" and a "hero".
Humans are crazy. *tap*tap*tap*tap*
>Until USB 3.0 ports are all over computers everywhere, USB 2.0 will be alive and kicking.
USB 2.0 WILL remain alive and kicking - it's supposed to. You don't need USB3's bandwidth for keyboards and mice and the like. The fact that USB3 devices can be used with USB2 ports (and cables) - albeit at USB2 speeds - means that they've also avoided the trap Firewire fell into. Seems like they're doing it right.
It's news if you're a fan of Brian, not so much if you're not. Since I AM ... it's news to me ... I was under the impression that his newest app was something called AIR ( http://the-palm-sound.blogspot.com/2009/09/air-brian-enos-new-iphone-app.html ) and didn't know about this release.
Since I'm not a fan of Apple, its over-priced, locked-in and locked-down douchebaggery, though ... it's all no use to me, except to wish i could get Bloom, Trope and AIR for my PC.
It has to be said, though that Eno's definitely nerd-newsworthy in himself; his involvement in the Long Now foundation, his interest in cybernetics - generative methods of creating art and music - all seem fairly relevant. (Not to mention his awesome music).
Much of the discussion in this thread seems very similar to what I used to hear from my friends when I was younger, regarding my appreciation of the Eno, though (my friends were a little politer in their dismissiveness, but the sentiment was the same). It's really worth remembering to reign in the fanboism, Rob! XD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_m17HK97M8
>Japan. Recording Industry Association of *America*.
Same arseholes, different toilet.
We still get shat upon.
Questions?
>Well, if you're not wearing pants in public perhaps it _would_ be a good idea if the proper authorities were notified?
I know we live in a rampant consumer culture, but I wasn't aware we'd gone as far as designating Calvin Klein or Victoria's Secret as 'proper authorities'.
Don't worry, it's perfectly safe: German made cars are immune to the laughter-inducing effects of nitrous oxide.
You also don't need a license to listen to BBC radio. The license fee applies to people using TV receivers. You can stop paying the license fee and continue listening to the radio without fear of consequences and in good conscience.
I knew as soon as the Murdoch junta declared their intent to charge for internet news that the BBC would be attacked in the near future.
Every time I hear those people crying for the end of the license fee, I see the world dominated by those rich media oligarchs like Murdoch and his unholy spawn, and wonder why they seem to think is a desirable alternative.
There are never just two choices.
>It's not an intelligence boost, just a way of coping with a problem.
In other words: it's focus. The equivalent of a retreat - buggering off to some cave to contemplate the mysteries of life - why it's so unpleasant, etc. because you NEED to come to some sort of understanding of whatever it is that's going on with your life in order to move on.
It's a koan - a spiritual dilemma which MUST be surmounted/resolved/transcended before ANYTHING else can be done, before life can go on.
A crisis, which requires intense contemplation to the exclusion of all else. Which isn't strictly true, because a healthy balance is needed to resolve any issue: forgetting the problem, gaining new experiences, doing thing entirely unrelated.
I've suffered from depression and despite all my intense contemplation of why and what was going on that was causing me to be depressed, additional diverse experiences, exposure to differing thinking, seeming unconnected phenomena was crucial in gaining any insight - as was just forgetting about things for a bit. Usually answers came quite unexpectedly when the issue was entirely out of mind. Of course, the focus was necessary, but so was the letting go.
These days I try to avoid deep intense analytical thought - and I think I have more insight. Analytical thought can only take you so far - at a certain point you're merely re-arranging the furniture, where what you need is creativity and insight. The trick I think is to recognice the limitations of each and apply them appropriately. And in all things, apply balance.
I think the problem is that the life-long sentence of universal stigmatisation that can occur for giving the keys in some circumstances - sex offender - even if it's just an image of a 17-year-old's boobies or a sex act between people of legal age (but not over 18) - just cannot compare to a few, even several years in prison for 'forgetting' your encryption key. At least once you're out after a RIPA prosecution, you can rejoin society. If you're a 'sex offender' (whatever the poor justification) the government wants you to be forever excluded from society and stigmatised; your sentence will never end.
No shit
>the Times (or, for non-Brits, the London Times) is a serious newspaper
This would be the newspaper that claimed public interest in revealing the identity of the anonymous police blogger, stopping his inside information from seeing the light of day and reaching the public, yes?
The Times at one time was not owned by Murdoch. It was a serious newspaper. He bought it and the rot began.
Winsxs doesn't necessarily contain that much data though. Most of the files in there are links to files elsewhere on the hd. Sometimes the same files counted multiple times. The size of winsxs that windows reports comes from the sum of all the files linked to.
I was disappointed in the response by Trading Standards, who compared to other consumer protection bodies around the world are generally good eggs:
"The Trading Standards Institute said that it could not comment on whether such letters were standard across the industry, but that it could understand that Apple would want to protect its reputation by trying to reach a confidential settlement."
Apple isn't trying to protect its reputation. Apple's reputation INCLUDES exploding iPods - albeit a pretty small number of them. What Apple's trying to do by gagging people whose iPods explode is FALSIFY its reputation; making it appear that the problem doesn't exist.
I hate to say it but, there appears to be a little wriggling worm at the center of that nice shiny, tasty-looking apple.