What, no Pokémon Snap on the list? (Seriously, if you haven't played that, do give it a try. It's surprisingly addictive, and I don't even like Pokémon otherwise.)
The funny thing about this is that SGI had things like this ten years ago already; I myself saw demos at the CeBIT fair several times. It's nice to see that this kind of thing is available for the average PC now, but it's also sad that SGI seems to be in its death throes at the same time...
M$ vs. Norton? Whoa, I really have no idea who to root for there - I'd actually hope they both lose, because that's the only way the end-user will win.:)
Re:The beauty of AppleScript.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Goodness, just how many top-level comments can you post in a single discussion in rapid succession? It *is* possible to write more than one sentence in a comment, y'know.:)
Ah, yes... of course this will get rid of discs in a couple of years, just like the introduction of computers created the paperless office in which nothing is ever printed on dead trees anymore.
Those fields *typically* contain the correct information, but it's not actually necessary for it to be there - SMTP servers don't care about these things, so it's just a convention for the sake of end-user convenience. Read up on how SMTP works, and all will become clear.:) (If you feel so inclined, you can also look for an "Envelope-To:" header in your emails - some (?) SMTP servers add that to indicate where they were told to send the email to.)
Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."
Well... assuming the story is true, yes, they are. Doing good things does not give you the right to do bad things without being criticised for it. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Relax, it's a joke. Didn't you see the "It's funny. Laugh." foot icon?
Re:The e-mail I sent to the editor was ignored.
on
No Time Travel, Sorry
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Note the URLs of the articles linked:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Spa ce
(emphasis mine.) That alone should make it pretty clear that this isn't meant to be taken seriously. Oh yeah, and the story got the "foot" icon, too, so even Taco got it.:)
There's nothing wrong with having a vested interest in the subject of an article. There *is* something wrong with letting that interest influence you - you are expected to abide by the NPOV principle etc., but as long as you do that, things are fine. Granted, you might sometimes accidentally write things in a way that's not entirely NPOV (and I really do mean accidentally, not "accidentally"), but that's something that will just be corrected later on by someone else (or even by yourself, if you notice it).
The real problem is those with an agenda who knowingly and deliberately push that agenda.
Simple: because blocks are based on IP addresses, not domain names. You could just block all address ranges currently allocated to the US government (or any government), of course, but there's no guarantee those'll never change - quite the opposite. So it's definitely not as easy as blocking "*.gov" or so.
Huh? That's got to be one of the most trollish posts I've read today. How can you possibly see something sinister in defending yourself when you're sued (as opposed to just saying "yes, sir, of course, sir, our pleasure, sir, won't happen again, sir")?
Huh? No, they're not. The people who killed Matthew Shepard, for example, did not go to jail because they were homophobes; they went to jail because they killed someone. The fact that they did so out of homophobia may have gotten them a harsher sentence (or maybe not; they still didn't get the chair or anything, after all), but you should keep in mind that the *important* thing - that which they actually went to jail for - is that they committed murder.
The same goes for any other crime as well. If you do something bad, then expect to be punished for it, and don't whine if you can't use your homophobia as a defense afterwards. It's not a thought crime unless it actually did not have a physical component; and evaluating the motive of a murderer etc. and adjusting the sentence accordingly is something that's been done forever, anyway, without anyone ever crying "thought crime".
Only that Furbid at least is actually free, whereas eBay has rather high fees these days. So, who's selling things at an inflated price?:)
Furcadia is a different story (and a waste of money, too, IMO at least) but that, together with Jeremy Bernal's site (no, I won't link to it, I don't want to boost his PageRank), is the only thing I can think of that actually costs money, and those two things ultimately aren't much different (in terms of rip-off-ness) from WoW or EQ on one hand or $RANDOM_PR0N_SITE on the other hand, either. So there's no premium being charged for furry content there, either.
I think (some) people are getting a bit too excited about this without considering the downsides. It's already possible to give people much-greater-than-average vision using laser eye surgery, and has been for a while, but it's not usually done, simply because those it was found out that when your vision is *too* good, it'll start to irritate you after a while - you'll get headaches, dizzy spells etc.
So... superhuman vision might be useful on occasion, for short periods of time, but if you think that we're all gonna wear contacts that will literally give us a hawk's vision in 20 years, think again. It won't happen.
It's revolution vs. evolution. RMS stands (and pushes) for a revolution of the status quo; CC stands and pushes for an evolution. It remains to be seen which will be more effective, but generally speaking, I'd place my bet on evolution.
Also, the following is not true:
In other words, he will not automatically give you a pat on the back just because you use a Creative Commons license; he wants to know what the terms of the license are first.
Actually, his logic seems to be more along the lines "CC has licenses I have philosophical objections to; therefore, I reject all of CC; therefore, I reject every use of *any* CC license, no matter whether I have philosophical objections to that specific license or not". In other words, RMS doesn't approve of the fact that I license my photos on Flickr under a CC license, even without knowing which it is and whether I restrict any kind of freedom at all. For someone advocating freedom, that's a surprisingly uptight position when you think about it.
So if Blizzard were to decide tomorrow that from now on, only white males that can confirm they're not of Jewish descent were allowed in the game anymore, you'd agree with that, too?
Obviously, Blizzard has the right to make some rules, but obviously, they can't do just *anything* they want to, either; in particular, it may well be they can't legally discriminate against certain groups (I'm not familiar enough with anti-discrimination laws to say whether that's the case, but I'd be surprised if they could).
What's more, people who play WoW have a *contract* with Blizzard and pay *money* to them - both for the game and for the monthly subscription, so they do have a *right* to access the game, too, simply because they paid for it. That doesn't mean they can do just anything, either, of course, but opening a GLBT-friendly guild is not reasonable grounds to suspend or even warn anyone.
Lovely - the link they provide doesn't even work. I would've expected something better from Google (like, maybe, a link to the Adblock Plus homepage)...
Well, complain about what's actually wrong, then. Your country is invaded because some pseudo-Hitler wannabe needs an excuse to stay in power? Your friends, family and acquaintances are killed and tortured left and right because somebody felt the need to slap a "terrorist" label on them? You are thrown into a Kafkaesque nightmare and nobody cares?
Complain about THAT, then; it's perfectly justified. But don't use it as an excuse to complain about cartoons that you view as offensive to your religion, because one issues doesn't have anything to do with the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, most (or at least many) Pokémon in the game could be made to do tricks etc., or interact with each other. Wikipedia has an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Snap
:)
It was not a game you could play forever, of course, but generally, I loved it.
What, no Pokémon Snap on the list? (Seriously, if you haven't played that, do give it a try. It's surprisingly addictive, and I don't even like Pokémon otherwise.)
The funny thing about this is that SGI had things like this ten years ago already; I myself saw demos at the CeBIT fair several times. It's nice to see that this kind of thing is available for the average PC now, but it's also sad that SGI seems to be in its death throes at the same time...
Considering this *is* Slashdot, it'd probably have to be the brain. :)
M$ vs. Norton? Whoa, I really have no idea who to root for there - I'd actually hope they both lose, because that's the only way the end-user will win. :)
Goodness, just how many top-level comments can you post in a single discussion in rapid succession? It *is* possible to write more than one sentence in a comment, y'know. :)
Ah, yes... of course this will get rid of discs in a couple of years, just like the introduction of computers created the paperless office in which nothing is ever printed on dead trees anymore.
Yes, just like that.
Those fields *typically* contain the correct information, but it's not actually necessary for it to be there - SMTP servers don't care about these things, so it's just a convention for the sake of end-user convenience. Read up on how SMTP works, and all will become clear. :) (If you feel so inclined, you can also look for an "Envelope-To:" header in your emails - some (?) SMTP servers add that to indicate where they were told to send the email to.)
If there's enough interest in the project, development moves to another country with less braindead patent laws. If there's not, it dies.
Well... assuming the story is true, yes, they are. Doing good things does not give you the right to do bad things without being criticised for it. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Relax, it's a joke. Didn't you see the "It's funny. Laugh." foot icon?
Note the URLs of the articles linked:
m a ce
:)
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.ht
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Sp
(emphasis mine.) That alone should make it pretty clear that this isn't meant to be taken seriously. Oh yeah, and the story got the "foot" icon, too, so even Taco got it.
There's nothing wrong with having a vested interest in the subject of an article. There *is* something wrong with letting that interest influence you - you are expected to abide by the NPOV principle etc., but as long as you do that, things are fine. Granted, you might sometimes accidentally write things in a way that's not entirely NPOV (and I really do mean accidentally, not "accidentally"), but that's something that will just be corrected later on by someone else (or even by yourself, if you notice it).
The real problem is those with an agenda who knowingly and deliberately push that agenda.
Simple: because blocks are based on IP addresses, not domain names. You could just block all address ranges currently allocated to the US government (or any government), of course, but there's no guarantee those'll never change - quite the opposite. So it's definitely not as easy as blocking "*.gov" or so.
Huh? That's got to be one of the most trollish posts I've read today. How can you possibly see something sinister in defending yourself when you're sued (as opposed to just saying "yes, sir, of course, sir, our pleasure, sir, won't happen again, sir")?
Stop the xenophobia, please.
Huh? No, they're not. The people who killed Matthew Shepard, for example, did not go to jail because they were homophobes; they went to jail because they killed someone. The fact that they did so out of homophobia may have gotten them a harsher sentence (or maybe not; they still didn't get the chair or anything, after all), but you should keep in mind that the *important* thing - that which they actually went to jail for - is that they committed murder.
The same goes for any other crime as well. If you do something bad, then expect to be punished for it, and don't whine if you can't use your homophobia as a defense afterwards. It's not a thought crime unless it actually did not have a physical component; and evaluating the motive of a murderer etc. and adjusting the sentence accordingly is something that's been done forever, anyway, without anyone ever crying "thought crime".
Only that Furbid at least is actually free, whereas eBay has rather high fees these days. So, who's selling things at an inflated price? :)
Furcadia is a different story (and a waste of money, too, IMO at least) but that, together with Jeremy Bernal's site (no, I won't link to it, I don't want to boost his PageRank), is the only thing I can think of that actually costs money, and those two things ultimately aren't much different (in terms of rip-off-ness) from WoW or EQ on one hand or $RANDOM_PR0N_SITE on the other hand, either. So there's no premium being charged for furry content there, either.
I think (some) people are getting a bit too excited about this without considering the downsides. It's already possible to give people much-greater-than-average vision using laser eye surgery, and has been for a while, but it's not usually done, simply because those it was found out that when your vision is *too* good, it'll start to irritate you after a while - you'll get headaches, dizzy spells etc.
So... superhuman vision might be useful on occasion, for short periods of time, but if you think that we're all gonna wear contacts that will literally give us a hawk's vision in 20 years, think again. It won't happen.
Funny comment today, insightful comment in two years, informative comment in five years...
It's revolution vs. evolution. RMS stands (and pushes) for a revolution of the status quo; CC stands and pushes for an evolution. It remains to be seen which will be more effective, but generally speaking, I'd place my bet on evolution.
Also, the following is not true:
Actually, his logic seems to be more along the lines "CC has licenses I have philosophical objections to; therefore, I reject all of CC; therefore, I reject every use of *any* CC license, no matter whether I have philosophical objections to that specific license or not". In other words, RMS doesn't approve of the fact that I license my photos on Flickr under a CC license, even without knowing which it is and whether I restrict any kind of freedom at all. For someone advocating freedom, that's a surprisingly uptight position when you think about it.
So if Blizzard were to decide tomorrow that from now on, only white males that can confirm they're not of Jewish descent were allowed in the game anymore, you'd agree with that, too?
Obviously, Blizzard has the right to make some rules, but obviously, they can't do just *anything* they want to, either; in particular, it may well be they can't legally discriminate against certain groups (I'm not familiar enough with anti-discrimination laws to say whether that's the case, but I'd be surprised if they could).
What's more, people who play WoW have a *contract* with Blizzard and pay *money* to them - both for the game and for the monthly subscription, so they do have a *right* to access the game, too, simply because they paid for it. That doesn't mean they can do just anything, either, of course, but opening a GLBT-friendly guild is not reasonable grounds to suspend or even warn anyone.
Lovely - the link they provide doesn't even work. I would've expected something better from Google (like, maybe, a link to the Adblock Plus homepage)...
"We'll go back to our roots by continuing what we currently do." - Huh?
Well, complain about what's actually wrong, then. Your country is invaded because some pseudo-Hitler wannabe needs an excuse to stay in power? Your friends, family and acquaintances are killed and tortured left and right because somebody felt the need to slap a "terrorist" label on them? You are thrown into a Kafkaesque nightmare and nobody cares?
Complain about THAT, then; it's perfectly justified. But don't use it as an excuse to complain about cartoons that you view as offensive to your religion, because one issues doesn't have anything to do with the other.