Other "great" news from the cutting edge of advertising is that more full movie streaming ads will become popular (obviously with advertisers not with users) And worst of all what are currently blockable popup ads will be replaced with Flash overlays that fly around screen.
All of these sound trivial to block. IE probably won't be updated to deal with them for years, if ever, but I forsee no problems for Firefox and Camino, and probably Safari.
For normal users this will all suck, but most of the ads probably won't work on a standard debian install so/.ers don't have too much to worry about.
Exactly. I've stopped caring about complaints from IE users who refuse to consider alternatives. It's like buying an SUV and then whining about gas prices.
Sorry, but merely giving a user an option to corrupt a local machine and then blaming the user for using this option is not a way out of the corner.
Yeah, and don't get me started on all the Unix vendors who are so irresponsible as to include the incredibly destructive tool "rm" preinstalled.
Come on. First of all, "corrupt" is a ridiculously loaded term. You may not like what APE does; in fact neither do I in principle, but I consider it an acceptable tradeoff to protect against the *confirmed* threat of malicious URL handlers. Second, the default is in fact to install for the local user only. Third, since the large majority of OS X systems don't have multiple user accounts, it usually makes no difference at all.
So does that make open source code worthless and that's why nobody should ever use it?
"Worthless" in the sense of no monetary value, perhaps, but that doesn't imply that nobody should use it. Water is virtually free as well, but I highly recommend it.
Agreed. I confess to being in the "iTunes DRM is reasonable so don't worry about it" camp at first, but with the Playfair flap and the recent tightening of restrictions it's become clear that *any* DRM is just the camel's nose in the tent. And I like Apple; I believe it's probable that their heavy-handed approach is being forced by the record labels, but that doesn't matter because the result is the same.
I just can't see a compromise here. There are two options: give whatever restrictions sellers desire the force of law (i.e. DMCA), or allow buyers to use copyrighted works in reasonable ways, only criminalizing actual infringement. For anyone who believes in individual liberty (which unfortunately excludes a large percentage of Congress), the choice should be obvious.
Bush lied, Bush continues to lie, and our country is far, FAR more in danger now than when we started this stupid fucking war.
I'd be interested in the metric you use to compute danger, seeing as how there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. (By the way, were you out protesting the "stupid fucking war" in Serbia, or are Democrats allowed to invade sovereign nations who pose no external threat?)
Bush said he was 100% certain that Saddam had massive stores of WMD and a nuclear program.
Is it just barely possible that maybe he really did believe that, and he was mistaken? Intelligence agencies have been known to make mistakes before. Never mind, I forgot he's from Texas and worked in the oil industry so he's obviously made a pact with Satan.
Oh, but of course, he never ACTUALLY said it. He just IMPLIED it, which makes it all ok, doesn't it? It was a failure of intelligence, which means it ain't his fault! Nothing is his fault! And I mean shit, who needs morals when you're having to deal with them dirty hippie commie faggot libruhls and that libruhl media?
It's amusing watching you guys get progressively more unhinged. Kerry should be leading Bush by a healthy margin given the Iraq situation and that the economic recovery isn't completely visible yet, but when your talking points are all variations on "Bush is a fascist", you can't expect much from the middle. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I'll be enjoying his victory on election night just envisioning the enragement of the left.
And without paying for the make-work jobs, the gas would be cheaper still. Basic economics, but I'm always surprised at how many NJ residents are convinced it's a wonderful system.
And, oh yeah, mass killing of palestinians is fictional all right. And that's only yesterday, mind you.
4 killed, and Israel claims they acted in self-defense, which wasn't refuted. I'm not seeing anything close to parity with the hundreds of Israeli civilians murdered in Palestinian terror attacks.
I hate what some jews are doing to the palestinians, and I hate what some palestinian do to the jews.
Sorry, moral equivalence doesn't work here. Show me Israeli teenagers blowing up Palestinian pizza restaurants or gunning down pregnant women, and I'll reconsider.
For example, a car costs $16000. Which is better? $1500 cash back, with a 4.75% APR for 48 months? or 0$ APR for 48 months? (about 40 cents difference)
Consider the time value of money. $1500 up front is worth more than $1500 saved in payments over 4 years, so the first option is better.
It may have changed since I last installed OS X, but sudo doesn't work without the root account enabled.
I'm almost positive sudo has always worked without the root account enabled; that's *why* you don't have to enable it. You do need to be in the admin group to be able to run sudo.
I'm a conservative, and these idiots are not. If they were, they would have a basic understanding of economics and realize that when something that used to be expensive becomes cheap, it's a net benefit to the economy. Actually, I suspect they do realize this, and are just spreading propaganda to support the special interests they represent, which is a time-honored tradition across the entire political spectrum.
A few large, and largely American, companies that exist to make software near the top of the chain will be the losers if free software takes over. The world's population in general will be the winners - they will pay less and get more, counteracting the tendency for the rich to get richer by further impoverishing the poor. I asert without proof that it's not a zero-sum gain.
And you're correct. It's the flip side of the broken window fallacy, which is the incorrect argument that breaking windows is good for the economy because it provides revenue for repairmen. In this case, free software is the equivalent of unbreakable windows; repairmen may be understandably upset that it lowers their income, but everyone else benefits.
Capitalism assumes that people want to be reimbursed in some way. Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism and stupidity.
Pride, enjoyment, and reputation are forms of reimbursement. Capitalism is about maximizing *utility*, not dollars. But let's say you're right, and everyone who releases free software is a socialist or an idiot. As a business owner, it's still in my self-interest to use that software if it fulfills a need that I otherwise would have had to pay for.
Why is it that people don't want to pay for software and media content?
Because the marginal cost is virtually zero, and people have a natural aversion to paying near-infinite markup percentages. But that's not relevant, because Playfair and similar utilities only work on music that you've *already bought*. It's not stealing even if you buy into the **AA meme that copyright infringement==theft.
i'd even say that the industry seems to have an agenda to abridge the rights of what we have long considered as our rights of ownership.
Agreed completely, this is the crux of the matter. It's the same as software EULAs; a publisher wants to pretend to let me buy something, then impose all sorts of restrictions on how I can use it. I'd prefer they were honest about it and admitted that they want to lease, not sell.
They produce the movies, it's their call. If they don't want you to be able to do thing 'x' with it, then you can't, it's that simple. If they require you to use a particular piece of hardware to view their movies, then that's that.
Fine. Then they can refuse to sell me their movies, and only lease them to me if I sign away my fair use rights. But that's not what they do.
They own the copyright on the movies. If you want to see them, then they have every right to tell you to view them, or not view them, in whatever way they want.
Not true. Copyright does not entail unlimited control over how a product is used.
The MPAA reserves the right to make money off of its "product" (approx. the capitalist view) while the user community reserves their right to do as they please with purchased goods (approx. the socialist view).
I don't understand your parentheticals. It's not "socialist" to expect to use my own property in any way I like as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others; rather that's one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism. The MPAA, on the other hand, attempts to use government power to reduce my ownership rights. If "socialist" applies to anyone, it's them.
I don't agree. They want to destroy fair use, and are willing to criminalize general purpose computers in the process. There are some areas where there just isn't a middle ground. Either I can legally run an open source DVD player on Linux (or Mac OS X if I want to bypass the ads), or I can't.
I understand trigonometry, so I know that the value of sin(0) will tell me if sine involves the adjacent or opposite side.
Ugh, forget triangles. Take the unit circle, start at (1,0) go counterclockwise for x radians, and you're at (cos(x), sin(x)). Not only is this easier to remember than which opposite/adjacent/hypotenuse ratio to use (at least for me), it correctly handles arguments less than 0 and greater than pi (or 180 if you insist).
Actually this insanity has nothing to do with capitalism. Government-run schools are forcing students to listen to propaganda from an industry that depends on government-created copyright laws, which go far beyond the (arguably) capitalist purpose of encouraging innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
Other "great" news from the cutting edge of advertising is that more full movie streaming ads will become popular (obviously with advertisers not with users) And worst of all what are currently blockable popup ads will be replaced with Flash overlays that fly around screen.
/.ers don't have too much to worry about.
All of these sound trivial to block. IE probably won't be updated to deal with them for years, if ever, but I forsee no problems for Firefox and Camino, and probably Safari.
For normal users this will all suck, but most of the ads probably won't work on a standard debian install so
Exactly. I've stopped caring about complaints from IE users who refuse to consider alternatives. It's like buying an SUV and then whining about gas prices.
Sorry, but merely giving a user an option to corrupt a local machine and then blaming the user for using this option is not a way out of the corner.
Yeah, and don't get me started on all the Unix vendors who are so irresponsible as to include the incredibly destructive tool "rm" preinstalled.
Come on. First of all, "corrupt" is a ridiculously loaded term. You may not like what APE does; in fact neither do I in principle, but I consider it an acceptable tradeoff to protect against the *confirmed* threat of malicious URL handlers. Second, the default is in fact to install for the local user only. Third, since the large majority of OS X systems don't have multiple user accounts, it usually makes no difference at all.
So does that make open source code worthless and that's why nobody should ever use it?
"Worthless" in the sense of no monetary value, perhaps, but that doesn't imply that nobody should use it. Water is virtually free as well, but I highly recommend it.
Even better, you can play with the Java interface and the Win32 client at the same time, with the same account (so you can be at 2 tables at once)
You can play at multiple tables with just the Java client as well.
Originally, it was hardcore Gregorian Chanting. It was pretty much like the regular chanting, except for all the cursing.
Carmina Burana comes pretty close.
Agreed. I confess to being in the "iTunes DRM is reasonable so don't worry about it" camp at first, but with the Playfair flap and the recent tightening of restrictions it's become clear that *any* DRM is just the camel's nose in the tent. And I like Apple; I believe it's probable that their heavy-handed approach is being forced by the record labels, but that doesn't matter because the result is the same.
I just can't see a compromise here. There are two options: give whatever restrictions sellers desire the force of law (i.e. DMCA), or allow buyers to use copyrighted works in reasonable ways, only criminalizing actual infringement. For anyone who believes in individual liberty (which unfortunately excludes a large percentage of Congress), the choice should be obvious.
Tell ya what: FOAD.
Ah, liberal tolerance rears its head again.
Bush lied, Bush continues to lie, and our country is far, FAR more in danger now than when we started this stupid fucking war.
I'd be interested in the metric you use to compute danger, seeing as how there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. (By the way, were you out protesting the "stupid fucking war" in Serbia, or are Democrats allowed to invade sovereign nations who pose no external threat?)
Bush said he was 100% certain that Saddam had massive stores of WMD and a nuclear program.
Is it just barely possible that maybe he really did believe that, and he was mistaken? Intelligence agencies have been known to make mistakes before. Never mind, I forgot he's from Texas and worked in the oil industry so he's obviously made a pact with Satan.
Oh, but of course, he never ACTUALLY said it. He just IMPLIED it, which makes it all ok, doesn't it? It was a failure of intelligence, which means it ain't his fault! Nothing is his fault! And I mean shit, who needs morals when you're having to deal with them dirty hippie commie faggot libruhls and that libruhl media?
It's amusing watching you guys get progressively more unhinged. Kerry should be leading Bush by a healthy margin given the Iraq situation and that the economic recovery isn't completely visible yet, but when your talking points are all variations on "Bush is a fascist", you can't expect much from the middle. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I'll be enjoying his victory on election night just envisioning the enragement of the left.
my gas is cheaper, i never have to leave the car
And without paying for the make-work jobs, the gas would be cheaper still. Basic economics, but I'm always surprised at how many NJ residents are convinced it's a wonderful system.
And, oh yeah, mass killing of palestinians is fictional all right. And that's only yesterday, mind you.
4 killed, and Israel claims they acted in self-defense, which wasn't refuted. I'm not seeing anything close to parity with the hundreds of Israeli civilians murdered in Palestinian terror attacks.
I hate what some jews are doing to the palestinians, and I hate what some palestinian do to the jews.
Sorry, moral equivalence doesn't work here. Show me Israeli teenagers blowing up Palestinian pizza restaurants or gunning down pregnant women, and I'll reconsider.
For example, a car costs $16000. Which is better?
$1500 cash back, with a 4.75% APR for 48 months?
or 0$ APR for 48 months?
(about 40 cents difference)
Consider the time value of money. $1500 up front is worth more than $1500 saved in payments over 4 years, so the first option is better.
It may have changed since I last installed OS X, but sudo doesn't work without the root account enabled.
I'm almost positive sudo has always worked without the root account enabled; that's *why* you don't have to enable it. You do need to be in the admin group to be able to run sudo.
I'm a conservative, and these idiots are not. If they were, they would have a basic understanding of economics and realize that when something that used to be expensive becomes cheap, it's a net benefit to the economy. Actually, I suspect they do realize this, and are just spreading propaganda to support the special interests they represent, which is a time-honored tradition across the entire political spectrum.
A few large, and largely American, companies that exist to make software near the top of the chain will be the losers if free software takes over. The world's population in general will be the winners - they will pay less and get more, counteracting the tendency for the rich to get richer by further impoverishing the poor. I asert without proof that it's not a zero-sum gain.
And you're correct. It's the flip side of the broken window fallacy, which is the incorrect argument that breaking windows is good for the economy because it provides revenue for repairmen. In this case, free software is the equivalent of unbreakable windows; repairmen may be understandably upset that it lowers their income, but everyone else benefits.
Capitalism assumes that people want to be reimbursed in some way. Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism and stupidity.
Pride, enjoyment, and reputation are forms of reimbursement. Capitalism is about maximizing *utility*, not dollars. But let's say you're right, and everyone who releases free software is a socialist or an idiot. As a business owner, it's still in my self-interest to use that software if it fulfills a need that I otherwise would have had to pay for.
Free Porn. Period. [ninenine.com]
Heh.
Another point - the only thing about the OS not available to those who are interested is the code for Quartz.
And Cocoa and Carbon.
"Morris" is trademarked by Heinz
Ah, so *that's* why Jobs started advising Kerry.
A predecessor to Cocoa, OpenStep Enterprise, was available on Windows NT.
And the current WebObjects developer tools still use the OpenStep/Yellow Box runtime on Windows; Apple just doesn't support its use by others.
On the ohter hand, the lunatic gun-nut militias turned out to be the (relatively) good guys.
Why is it that people don't want to pay for software and media content?
Because the marginal cost is virtually zero, and people have a natural aversion to paying near-infinite markup percentages. But that's not relevant, because Playfair and similar utilities only work on music that you've *already bought*. It's not stealing even if you buy into the **AA meme that copyright infringement==theft.
i'd even say that the industry seems to have an agenda to abridge the rights of what we have long considered as our rights of ownership.
Agreed completely, this is the crux of the matter. It's the same as software EULAs; a publisher wants to pretend to let me buy something, then impose all sorts of restrictions on how I can use it. I'd prefer they were honest about it and admitted that they want to lease, not sell.
They produce the movies, it's their call. If they don't want you to be able to do thing 'x' with it, then you can't, it's that simple. If they require you to use a particular piece of hardware to view their movies, then that's that.
Fine. Then they can refuse to sell me their movies, and only lease them to me if I sign away my fair use rights. But that's not what they do.
They own the copyright on the movies. If you want to see them, then they have every right to tell you to view them, or not view them, in whatever way they want.
Not true. Copyright does not entail unlimited control over how a product is used.
The MPAA reserves the right to make money off of its "product" (approx. the capitalist view) while the user community reserves their right to do as they please with purchased goods (approx. the socialist view).
I don't understand your parentheticals. It's not "socialist" to expect to use my own property in any way I like as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others; rather that's one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism. The MPAA, on the other hand, attempts to use government power to reduce my ownership rights. If "socialist" applies to anyone, it's them.
We really do want the same things that they want.
I don't agree. They want to destroy fair use, and are willing to criminalize general purpose computers in the process. There are some areas where there just isn't a middle ground. Either I can legally run an open source DVD player on Linux (or Mac OS X if I want to bypass the ads), or I can't.
I understand trigonometry, so I know that the value of sin(0) will tell me if sine involves the adjacent or opposite side.
Ugh, forget triangles. Take the unit circle, start at (1,0) go counterclockwise for x radians, and you're at (cos(x), sin(x)). Not only is this easier to remember than which opposite/adjacent/hypotenuse ratio to use (at least for me), it correctly handles arguments less than 0 and greater than pi (or 180 if you insist).
their album about the pitfalls of capitalism
Actually this insanity has nothing to do with capitalism. Government-run schools are forcing students to listen to propaganda from an industry that depends on government-created copyright laws, which go far beyond the (arguably) capitalist purpose of encouraging innovation.