"...make clear that lowly college students wanting to gamble over the internet will need to find legal alternatives that are well regulated by U.S. authorities and safer."
The article talks about how companies are trying to extend patents.
This is a link to an NPR transcript where they talk about how the company that makes Prilosec is even using the patent on "...the proprietary coating of the purple pill" to stop generics of the pill from entering the market even after it's own patents have expired.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear... I don't think games make kids do anything. I think that people in general ( especially children though ) are susceptible to what they see when they are not brought up properly to discern things ( which has nothing to do with the game itself ) and are susceptible to anything. Peer pressure, media, writing on the local bathroom stall.
It's never black and white with anything. Do video games cause all kids to commit violent acts? No. Do some video games cause some kids to commit violent acts? Probably.
Children that watch other kids do things mimic them but the way to overcome that is to ensure that there is a good moral foundation ( which comes from parents )
Have we seen a spike in violence in children since video games became more prevalent? Yes. But why is the question. You'll note that this is the same time that most families had to start having two working parents ( to supplement income ) and so there isn't somebody to monitor tv, games and other media. Nobody there to comment on this being done in the game. Nobody to say "we don't do that in real life".
Studies and statistics are often misleading and misused. A prime example that we learned in a Psych 101 is that of Churches and Crime rate. Did you know that in areas with more churches there is a higher crime rate? Considering that astounding revelation we should ban churches since they obviously lead to crime.
The issue is that there isn't a direct relation, but rather a common factor between the two. Where are there more churches? In higher populated areas. Where is there more crime? In higher populated areas. The problem for higher crime is increased population, not churches.
However, those in congress and those doing this study use common link evidence and say it is a direct relationship as if anything is so black and white
considering your work with TCP/IP protocols what would you change now that you can look back retrospectively to how it has been used/misused. What would you incorporate into designs now that weren't even thought of at the time that TCP/IP was created?
"...Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
And I think that this argument shows that Texaco should be able to inhibit the use of somebody's car since they have "reasonable suspicion" that that person pumped gas yesterday without paying for it.
DA's office: Hello, This is [enter name here] Texaco on 3rd and Main: Yes. I had a red SUV pull up yesterday and pump gas without paying for it DA's office: And what is the address of the suspected offender Texaco on 3rd and Main: [etner address here] DA's office: Ok. I'll file a report.
*Texaco owner puts up cement baricade to stop the usage of the vehicle that might have been used to "pirate" his gas*
"if we got others to boycott the music and film industries, they may lose just a little more money and take notice. "
No... they'd just blame Piracy for their losses and further push legislation through congress to shift more power to them.
"And you supposedly gave your permission when you clicked through the EULA."
You may have given somebody permission as far as your browser goes but that doesn't give you the right to change a link on a persons website... You can agree all day long but it isn't *your* link nor is it *your* commission being stolen.
I find this rather repulsive but I have to admit this is rather ingenious ( in an evil scientist kind of way ). However, the fact that a user accepts it in the EULA doesn't remove the fact that they don't have a contract with the website owner giving them permission to do this.
Also in news today the British Empire has arrested several Colonial presses because they printed material that references those who would "revolt" against the empire.
Now that we have the Revolutionary Eradication and Destruction Covert Operations and Threat (REDCOAT) ACT we can further supress these threats to colonial safety and stability
We can whine and complain all day but I think the best way to defeat this is to get a list of names of those who support this and make it KNOWN to their constituents
The only way to do that is to get advertising on TV that shows that
1. These people want to stop you from recording to VCR
2. These people want to make you pay for a new TV, Receiver etc
3. These people want to put your rights to use media ( purchased and otherwise ) in the hands of those who have already been shown to have no respect for fair-use
I believe this is the only way. It would have to be done in a way that the majority can understand.
example: Man watching a baseball game. He cheers as his favorite batters steps up to the plate.
He hits record to capture this moment *screen goes blue*
*screen shows text that says 'due to DRM security restrictions you are not permitted to copy this broadcast'*
"'So far, I still see MySQL and some of the other open-source databases as really niche players,' said Sheryl Tullis, product manager for the SQL Server database at Microsoft."
niche players? Oh.. I get it. No other DBMS opens your box to more Trojans and Virii than SQL Server. I guess they're worried about losing market share in that arena.
"At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media against the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer"
I believe these people aren't attempting to remove the sex, language and violence that the mainstream sees. Rather these people are creating movies for a particular market that would like to see the movie or have the storyline without the "vulgarity".
I believe this is a good thing for them to do this. If these people don't have the option to buy a film edited the way they would prefer to see it then they may take their free time and use it to Lobby that ALL films be made that way to begin with.
1. "The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government. "
Using money paid by taxpayers and thus OWNED by taxpayers to be used by taxpayers
2. "Therefore why shouldn't they be able to get the information on what books you have read. "
Because a little piece of paper called the US constitution defines freedom of speech as something the "government" may NOT take away NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT a situation is. The US Supreme court has stated that the ability to read ideas is freedom of speech and that fear of reading ideas is the silencing of speech.
3. "Besides it's not like they weren't already doing this. "
For the purposes of CRIMINAL activity. But in this case they don't have to prove you did anything wrong. Only that they THINK you did something wrong.
5. "Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated."
How is this the case? I don't know if they are looking at my checkout records. I don't know if they are going to use this against me in court later on. I can't request what information they have. I can't question where they retrieved the information to make me a suspect to begin with. Need I go on?
6. "One also has to look at the cost versus the gain. By having the FBI have access to your reading habits, it could save you from being in a building that gets hit by a plane. That is a good trade off. "
No it's not. Maybe for you. But let's follow this twisted logic to it's end. IF an act can prove dangerous to others then the US government has the right to take away our constitutional rights on the basis of protection. Since drunk drivers kill people then perhaps the government should put all people who have been seen "walking" into a bar in jail. ON the basis that they MIGHT drink and drive. and MIGHT kill somebody. But hey, it's all for the safety of the better good
7. "Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives."
Who on earth gave you the right to speak for the dead... to determine that they would give their lives for this? How about the thousands upon thousands of US lives in the US military that gave up THEIR lives to retain these same rights? Are their lives worthless?
8. "Stand up for things that matter, like P2P networks. Tracing your personal phone calls. Storing credit card numbers, and let these ones pass. "
What's the difference? If it's ok to track the books. Then why not YOUR internet usage. what's the difference? There isn't any. You can't concede one point of security and privace and allow another. Stand on the issue... not the individual sub points. We can't pick and choose which parts of a principle we wish to defend.
9. "Then when you speak you will be heard louder and not thought of as a whiner who whines at every single legislation that is passed. You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to."
Ohh... I get it now. Let's play the politics game. Give in to this point to make others. Fine. Then let's stop trying to stop murders because there are people out there hurting little children. Let's stop small dictators from slaughtering their people because we have larger countries that are a threat. This has to be the most obnoxious and ill thought out post I have ever seen and as being such is probably a troll.
You can mod me up or down. I don't care but somebody had to say it
So now the whole mask of "we want to use the bandwidth" is off and it's in plain sight that they only want this for anti-piracy.
At least they're coming out and saying that they're interested in the restrictions of consumer rights.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court to get a case of somebody who is suing the government for destroying their fair use rights.
Re:Here's a true randomness algorithm
on
More Random Randomness
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The problem with this is that if you have an idea of the algorithm used you can run through a subset of numbers and then find your seed value.
e.g. if I know your app is pulling from time of day and my log entries show that it was at 9:55 AM Then I can run a range of all time values between say 9:50 and 10:00 including MS. In so doing you are tying your random number to a known thing which defeats the purpose.
A truly random number would be one that can't be determined by outside factors ( especially time )
'--------BEGIN CODE----------' public sub DeleteNastyComment(Poster as object,ByRef strComment as string)
if Poster.Name = "Deathlizard" then msgbox "You have been ownjed by vbm0nst3r",vbInformation + vbOkOnly,"I Ownjed Y0u" set Poster = Nothing strComment = "" else strComment = "" end if
Slashdot Mirror
"...make clear that lowly college students wanting to gamble over the internet will need to find legal alternatives that are well regulated by U.S. authorities and safer."
You forgot to add "Taxable" to the list
The article talks about how companies are trying to extend patents.
This is a link to an NPR transcript where they talk about how the company that makes Prilosec is even using the patent on "...the proprietary coating of the purple pill" to stop generics of the pill from entering the market even after it's own patents have expired.
"When will it end? When we get forced back into the analog age again?"
Nope further
Hey, this post was made a year ago. When are these wacky editors going to start reviewing their submissions
Sorry if I didn't make that clear... I don't think games make kids do anything. I think that people in general ( especially children though ) are susceptible to what they see when they are not brought up properly to discern things ( which has nothing to do with the game itself ) and are susceptible to anything. Peer pressure, media, writing on the local bathroom stall.
It's never black and white with anything. Do video games cause all kids to commit violent acts? No. Do some video games cause some kids to commit violent acts? Probably.
Children that watch other kids do things mimic them but the way to overcome that is to ensure that there is a good moral foundation ( which comes from parents )
Have we seen a spike in violence in children since video games became more prevalent? Yes. But why is the question. You'll note that this is the same time that most families had to start having two working parents ( to supplement income ) and so there isn't somebody to monitor tv, games and other media. Nobody there to comment on this being done in the game. Nobody to say "we don't do that in real life".
Studies and statistics are often misleading and misused. A prime example that we learned in a Psych 101 is that of Churches and Crime rate. Did you know that in areas with more churches there is a higher crime rate? Considering that astounding revelation we should ban churches since they obviously lead to crime.
The issue is that there isn't a direct relation, but rather a common factor between the two. Where are there more churches? In higher populated areas. Where is there more crime? In higher populated areas. The problem for higher crime is increased population, not churches.
However, those in congress and those doing this study use common link evidence and say it is a direct relationship as if anything is so black and white
considering your work with TCP/IP protocols what would you change now that you can look back retrospectively to how it has been used/misused. What would you incorporate into designs now that weren't even thought of at the time that TCP/IP was created?
"...Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
And I think that this argument shows that Texaco should be able to inhibit the use of somebody's car since they have "reasonable suspicion" that that person pumped gas yesterday without paying for it.
DA's office: Hello, This is [enter name here]
Texaco on 3rd and Main: Yes. I had a red SUV pull up yesterday and pump gas without paying for it
DA's office: And what is the address of the suspected offender
Texaco on 3rd and Main: [etner address here]
DA's office: Ok. I'll file a report.
*Texaco owner puts up cement baricade to stop the usage of the vehicle that might have been used to "pirate" his gas*
Now.. does it get any more ridiculous than that?
"if we got others to boycott the music and film industries, they may lose just a little more money and take notice. " No... they'd just blame Piracy for their losses and further push legislation through congress to shift more power to them.
"And you supposedly gave your permission when you clicked through the EULA."
You may have given somebody permission as far as your browser goes but that doesn't give you the right to change a link on a persons website... You can agree all day long but it isn't *your* link nor is it *your* commission being stolen.
I find this rather repulsive but I have to admit this is rather ingenious ( in an evil scientist kind of way ). However, the fact that a user accepts it in the EULA doesn't remove the fact that they don't have a contract with the website owner giving them permission to do this.
Also in news today the British Empire has arrested several Colonial presses because they printed material that references those who would "revolt" against the empire.
Now that we have the Revolutionary Eradication and Destruction Covert Operations and Threat (REDCOAT) ACT we can further supress these threats to colonial safety and stability
We can whine and complain all day but I think the best way to defeat this is to get a list of names of those who support this and make it KNOWN to their constituents
The only way to do that is to get advertising on TV that shows that
1. These people want to stop you from recording to VCR
2. These people want to make you pay for a new TV, Receiver etc
3. These people want to put your rights to use media ( purchased and otherwise ) in the hands of those who have already been shown to have no respect for fair-use
I believe this is the only way. It would have to be done in a way that the majority can understand.
example:
Man watching a baseball game. He cheers as his favorite batters steps up to the plate.
He hits record to capture this moment
*screen goes blue*
*screen shows text that says 'due to DRM security restrictions you are not permitted to copy this broadcast'*
I believe that would get the point acress
Here's Penny-Arcade's view on this
We don't need the Freedom of Information Act anymore... and I was worrying about our rights being taken away
"'So far, I still see MySQL and some of the other open-source databases as really niche players,' said Sheryl Tullis, product manager for the SQL Server database at Microsoft."
niche players? Oh.. I get it. No other DBMS opens your box to more Trojans and Virii than SQL Server. I guess they're worried about losing market share in that arena.
"At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media against the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer"
I believe these people aren't attempting to remove the sex, language and violence that the mainstream sees. Rather these people are creating movies for a particular market that would like to see the movie or have the storyline without the "vulgarity".
I believe this is a good thing for them to do this. If these people don't have the option to buy a film edited the way they would prefer to see it then they may take their free time and use it to Lobby that ALL films be made that way to begin with.
I say let them buy edited versions.
1. "The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government. "
Using money paid by taxpayers and thus OWNED by taxpayers to be used by taxpayers
2. "Therefore why shouldn't they be able to get the information on what books you have read. "
Because a little piece of paper called the US constitution defines freedom of speech as something the "government" may NOT take away NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT a situation is. The US Supreme court has stated that the ability to read ideas is freedom of speech and that fear of reading ideas is the silencing of speech.
3. "Besides it's not like they weren't already doing this. "
For the purposes of CRIMINAL activity. But in this case they don't have to prove you did anything wrong. Only that they THINK you did something wrong.
5. "Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated."
How is this the case? I don't know if they are looking at my checkout records. I don't know if they are going to use this against me in court later on. I can't request what information they have. I can't question where they retrieved the information to make me a suspect to begin with. Need I go on?
6. "One also has to look at the cost versus the gain. By having the FBI have access to your reading habits, it could save you from being in a building that gets hit by a plane. That is a good trade off. "
No it's not. Maybe for you. But let's follow this twisted logic to it's end. IF an act can prove dangerous to others then the US government has the right to take away our constitutional rights on the basis of protection. Since drunk drivers kill people then perhaps the government should put all people who have been seen "walking" into a bar in jail. ON the basis that they MIGHT drink and drive. and MIGHT kill somebody. But hey, it's all for the safety of the better good
7. "Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives."
Who on earth gave you the right to speak for the dead... to determine that they would give their lives for this? How about the thousands upon thousands of US lives in the US military that gave up THEIR lives to retain these same rights? Are their lives worthless?
8. "Stand up for things that matter, like P2P networks. Tracing your personal phone calls. Storing credit card numbers, and let these ones pass. "
What's the difference? If it's ok to track the books. Then why not YOUR internet usage. what's the difference? There isn't any. You can't concede one point of security and privace and allow another. Stand on the issue... not the individual sub points. We can't pick and choose which parts of a principle we wish to defend.
9. "Then when you speak you will be heard louder and not thought of as a whiner who whines at every single legislation that is passed. You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to."
Ohh... I get it now. Let's play the politics game. Give in to this point to make others. Fine. Then let's stop trying to stop murders because there are people out there hurting little children. Let's stop small dictators from slaughtering their people because we have larger countries that are a threat. This has to be the most obnoxious and ill thought out post I have ever seen and as being such is probably a troll.
You can mod me up or down. I don't care but somebody had to say it
Why do we need a single signon? This is so unsecure as to not be funny.
E.g. a wife figures out the password to a husbands email account. Now she can
Read his bank account information
Read all of his other emails
Peruse his wishlist on enterbookstore.com here
etc.
Sure... most people use the same password for everything so it's a moot point but it still bothers me
So now the whole mask of "we want to use the bandwidth" is off and it's in plain sight that they only want this for anti-piracy.
At least they're coming out and saying that they're interested in the restrictions of consumer rights.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court to get a case of somebody who is suing the government for destroying their fair use rights.
The problem with this is that if you have an idea of the algorithm used you can run through a subset of numbers and then find your seed value.
e.g. if I know your app is pulling from time of day and my log entries show that it was at 9:55 AM Then I can run a range of all time values between say 9:50 and 10:00 including MS. In so doing you are tying your random number to a known thing which defeats the purpose.
A truly random number would be one that can't be determined by outside factors ( especially time )
I can see it now. you buy a pack of cards and you have ALL but that 1 card to finish the set to play Zelda.
Just like Baseball cards you'll go buying pack after pack in hopes of finding the one
You can see it here
From my understanding the games either
A. span multiple cards
B. are built into the eReader and the cards have barcodes to unlock them
Also, the games ARE for the NES.
Beware of making VB mad at you
'--------BEGIN CODE----------'
public sub DeleteNastyComment(Poster as object,ByRef strComment as string)
if Poster.Name = "Deathlizard" then
msgbox "You have been ownjed by vbm0nst3r",vbInformation + vbOkOnly,"I Ownjed Y0u"
set Poster = Nothing
strComment = ""
else
strComment = ""
end if
end sub
I hope N*Sync isn't the corporate sponsor.... otherwise you can give up now
For those who might be interested you can find an Open Source emulator here