All they have to do is hire someone who has no real interest in the show or is such a raving fanatic that they make changes which strangle the show's unique qualities (pink Daleks anyone?). Pink Daleks? Someone came pretty close to that with the GayDaleks.
Note: These episodes contain almost as many gay references as the new "Doctor Who" series. But not quite.
For those state side who are not familiar with The Sun, its equivalent over there is probably the national equirer or other super market tabloids.
Calling The Sun a rag would be an insult to dish clothes the world over! I wouldn't wipe my arse with The Sun personally. Mainly because I'd be worried that some half-baked inaccurate rumour-mongering story about Doctor Who would come off on my backside.;-)
Hmm, call me cynical, but do we think that RTD's contract with the BBC may be up for renewal, and he's trying to scare them into upping his rate? Hmm, call me cynical, but The Sun has a track record for putting out stories like this based on half-truths, rumour and/or downright fabrication.
Could be true, could be bollocks, but as long as it gets some page views or shifts a few more papers, I doubt they give a toss. Looks like they succeeded.
I betcha that the Russians are running scared that Soloway will really start to talk. Oh well, expect to see Polonium-210 on the prison menu sometime soon, then.
Whoever this Mr. Noone is, he really sounds like the victim here. Peter Noone used to be the lead singer of Herman's Hermits. They were big in the 60s.
I still think this whole Wii thing is a giant hoax. I'll believe it exists when I see one for sale. Of course it's a hoax. Supposedly, George Harrison is working for Nintendo of America, which is pretty strange for a musician who's been dead for five years.
Aaaahhhh.... but all the Beatles conspiracy theorists will point out that it's Harrison's death that is actually the hoax. Mystical Harrison had uber-1337 prediction skills and foresaw the rise of the Wii in 1967 (he wanted to get John Lennon to change his song lyrics from "You say you want a Revolution" to "You say you want a Wii" because he knew they'd change the name *even then*).
As its launch draw nearer, Harrison needed all his strength and needed to avoid Beatles obsessives, so he faked his own death. Some had suspicions, and the stress was getting to Harrison, so he had plastic surgery, letting him appear in public again. Of course, no-one would expect him to keep the same name, so in a masterful stroke, that's exactly what he did!!!
Meanwhile, Harrison is no longer on speaking terms with John Lennon after he worked on the rival Playstation 3. Paul McCartney is, as we all know, dead (for real), and Ringo Starr has retired on his "Thomas the Tank Engine" royalties.
Re:Public DNS is corrupt, but Private DNS is subli
on
DNS Complexity
·
· Score: 1
The Public DNS System has become corrupted. It used to be edu, com, org, net, and country codes.
Then the bribes started, now we have.info,.tv, and god knows what else.
Internally, I use DNS and I would never replace it. Just secure it. Problem here is that you're mixing two- if not three- distinct issues; the DNS specification (and its implementations) and the choice of top-level domains. That the latter may be badly-chosen is not an inherent flaw of DNS itself. DNS may have flaws, but the poor choice of names is not its fault, any more than poor-quality TV programming reflects a problem with the chosen transmission system or the TV sets.
For instance, you can set the comment threshold HIGHER than 5 by editing the number after "threshold=" It works the other way too; you can set the threshold to -2 or lower via the URL. Most people never get to see such posts, which is the whole point- you'd be shocked if you knew what was there. Things modded down to -2 include:
Secrets of the Illuminati
The truth behind the JFK assassination
Clear evidence that Steve Jobs is not God, Bill Gates is not the devil and Steve Ballmer is not *actually* a chair-throwing ape
Anything linking to Zonk's blackmail pics of Taco and Cowboy Neal
If you think that the set of file sharing that is legal is wrong, then complain to your government. That's irrelevant; I didn't argue against it, and it wasn't the point I was making, which was that Apple aren't legally obliged to stop people from sharing files, so they were obviously doing what they did for some other reason.
Making it easy for their customers to break the law should not be the priority of any manufacturer. There *are* legal uses. Of course, as you point out, most people won't be using them for that.
The exact same thing applies to blank cassette tapes. Were TDK evil and Apple morally superior because the former once sold a very high percentage of their products (cassettes) to people who wanted to pirate music?
If you want to use the iPod to carry your band's music around, then you could just copy it across and use it as a mass storage device. If you want to use it for copyright infringement, then I don't expect you will find much sympathy anywhere. That as may be, lots of companies sell products whose primary use is likely to be piracy. Sony (ironically) sold Hifis with double cassette decks.
I expect to see you getting high and mighty with those companies for not failing to live up to Apple's high moral standards.
Except that (assuming they omitted the feature because it had little "legal" use) Apple probably acted for political reasons, not because they were acting as a moral policeman.
DRM is about preventing things that you are legally allowed to do. The proponents might argue otherwise.
What about if you buy a crowbar, and it doesn't come with instructions for housebreaking? Outside of a (very) few exceptions and contrived examples, there is no legal form of housebreaking, so the situation isn't the same.
This is about not making it easier to do things that you are not legally allowed to do. Do you complain if you buy a car and it doesn't come with a radar jammer so you can avoid speeding fines? No, but you've given me a very good example.
Do *you* complain that GM, Ford and friends sell cars that allow people to break the legal speed limit? After all, 99% of these cars will never be driven outside the country or on private land, so there's no reason for them to provide any level of performance beyond the legal speed limit.
And you're missing the point. Most companies don't act as policemen unless they're legally obliged to or if it's in their interest. In Apple's case, it's the latter- I believe that they *have* reduced functionality in their product that they would otherwise have probably included.
There was no reason to make sharing music trivial, because 99% of the target audience do not have music collections that are either in the public domain or for which they own the distribution rights. When it came to a choice between adding a feature that would be of no (legal) use to 99% of their users, As I said, if battery life were the only factor, and Apple really wanted to enable easier sharing, they could have worked round it- possibly using a second index that was only (inefficiently) accessed when sharing, fixing filenames on the fly.
The crux of the matter here is your automatic assumption that only "legal" sharing should be considered. But I'm willing to bet that a large proportion of that 99% of users *would* like to share their music, regardless of the legality. I doubt that adding it would bloat the interface/complexity notably. And Apple aren't responsible for their users' misuse of their products, and they are in the business of selling players, so why wouldn't they include it?
The obvious answer is that the record industry, who they want to cooperate with them, wouldn't like it. Certainly, the functionality is there, but it's nowhere as easy as it might be, and that in itself will stop a lot of people using it. Which is probably the intention...
It's not as bad as DRM, but it still comes from the same mindset.
The fucktarded shitdot sheeple can't handle the fucking truth that open sores and Linsux is the worst options out there since it relates to communism and the destruction of true freedom and all economies.
But keep showing how fucking stupid you are shitdot sheeple. You all need to slit your fucking wrists. Are you for real? I still can't figure out whether you should have been modded as a "-1 Flamebait" or a "+5 Funny".
Unless I'm misreading what you said, it sounds like you still have to copy the music from a "hidden" folder and guess what the hash is supposed to be. If Apple had wanted to make it quick and easy to share/copy playable music, I'm sure they wouldn't have done it that way. Your description sounds like a workaround.
The fucktarded shitdot sheeple would naturally say the communist "Open Sores" solution would be the best. Of course they are a bunch of fucktards who should collectively slit their fucking wrists. Hmm.... I'm sure this wasn't what Microsoft wanted when they asked you to run an "aggressive" FUD campaign.
I don't think anyone has reliably claimed that the BBC themselves invented television, but if you want to start arguing for Farnsworth as its inventor, then no to that as well. He (arguably) invented the first wholly electronic television system, but others- including perhaps most notably the famous John Logie Baird- had working television systems before that.
Admittedly these were electromechanical disk-based systems, and a wholly electronic TV system was a major innovation worthy of respect- certainly preferable, and it's unsurprising that it was the system that took off. However, there's a difference between the "inventor of television" full stop, and the "inventor of electronic television"; if there's any doubt that Baird was the former (and that's a can of worms), then Farnsworth definitely wasn't.
Blizzard also charges 8.25% sales tax to NYS residents, even those of us who live in a county where the tax less than that. Who keeps the extra money wrongly collected as "tax"- Blizzard or your county/state/whatever?
If the former, doesn't profiteering from wrongful collection of taxes contravene some federal law and potentially place Blizzard in some very, very deep shit with the IRS (or whoever)?
When I noticed the oddity on my statement, I wrote Blizzard's billing department and was told that "Blizzard and its employees cannot be expected to understand tax laws, if you would like additional information, please contact your state Department of Commerce." (Disclaimer: IANAL, and the following is speculation). Whilst it's understandable that most employees won't understand tax law, there should be someone there that *does* (or should) and should have been informed/questioned about the issue as soon as (anyone in) the company was informed that there may be such a problem.... right? Or at least I'd guess that's how a court would see it.
I don't know that much about the U.S. tax authorities, but I do know that you don't want to get on the wrong side of them. I really doubt Blizzard washing their hands or shrugging their shoulders like that would look good for them at all.
Might be worth investigating if you dislike Blizzard's attitude and possible wrongful profiteering.
Federal felony. Federal felony? The obvious flaw with that is that it assumes the perpetrator lives within the United States or a country that's willing to enforce U.S. law on their soil (whether or not it applies there). Unfortunately, I can't see this working if the person in question lives in, say, China.
The final days are near when the Jesus-god will return to judge the worthy and the unworthy. Learn the magic happy dance and perform it daily or the Jesus-god will turn you into macaroni salad Macaroni? Jesus? This sounds like a New Testament version of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are you like a Christian to FSM's Judaism?
People used to say that Yahoo and AltaVista did search really well. Then Google came along and changed the game. If an ex-employee of google figures out a way to cut out all the spam rubbish on the search results then I'm sure almost everyone would switch overnight. That's true; what's significant about Google is that it entered the game relatively late. (By the time it started gaining its greatest prominence/popularity, the dot-com boom was pretty much over. It wouldn't be accurate to describe it as a post-dot-com company, but you can see where I'm coming from.)
By this time Yahoo were well-established as the big name in search. One would have thought that the market would have matured to a point where a rival being able to overtake and dominate them like that was unlikely. Of course, computer and Internet use has grown since then, so maybe the market wasn't *that* mature. (By contrast, Altavista may have been one of the first big names when the Internet/Web broke into the public consciousness, but that was such early days that their loss of dominance isn't so significant.)
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! "Get off my LAN", surely?
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Yes, lameness filter, I believe that was the original poster's intent. (Ironic that padding a rejected message with the filter's original complaint stops it complaining again).
It's bad enough on its own, but can you imagine the horrific "action shots" featuring out-of-shape wannabe geeks in those... things, if they sold it on ThinkGeek?!
Besides which, it reads "To Go Where No Man Has Gone Before". What happened to the infinitive-splitting "boldly"?- your average nerd *will* complain about such things.
That Ann Summers site is cheesier than a Swiss cheese factory, too.
Dogtanian: "This isn't denying that 3 + 5 = 8. At best we know that the right-hand side is 8, but we aren't sure what the two numbers on the left are. Am I going to take the word of someone with a vested interest in 3s and 5s? Am I heck! They might be 4 + 4, or 6 + 1, or whatever..."
dharbee: Exactly.
Ermm..... (coughs).... I meant for large values of "6" and "1".;-(
I apologise if I mistook your discussion of mathematical curiosities as an attempt to change the subject or pull rank.
I would rather get into reasons as to why you think 3+5 = 8? Is it because someone told you at sometime in life? Learned it by example? One or the other; I'm aware that there are issues surrounding this.
How is it real? Someone told me that 4 divided by 0 in not achievable but someone else told me recently some math guy invented a new math and it is achievable. How do we know what is logic? How do we know what is real? These are issues that I have personally considered. However, much as I'd like to discuss this, it's definitely off-topic and thus probably not a good idea for us to continue here in a public discussion.:-/
I also tend to use the Pronouns in place of general people statements and I apologize for that. When I say You, I mean You as in "People in General". No need to apologise for that; most people (including myself) do the same- it's unclear why saying "one can..." in English is considered posh or affected, but I wish it wasn't because it would help make things clearer. It's not a problem in French, for example.
As to having to know about a post you made elsewhere that was directly on point. How am I supposed to find that out? You're right, and I did not require (nor expect) you to have read it; I included it to emphasise the point that I was not in the business of making ad hominem attacks.
Nevertheless, there was no logical fallacy in my original post. On the contrary, your labelling of my criticism of the Daily Mail's reliability as "attacking the messenger" *was* logically incorrect for reasons I already explained.
What I found questionable about the reply was very simple.
"I wouldn't dismiss this issue altogether simply because it came from the Daily Mail; " implies that the Daily Mail is bad, but the Daily Mail isnt bad or is it? I think that it's unreliable and has a consistent and demonstrable bias, and in that sense I consider it "bad" from a news point-of-view.
The Straw Man argument seems to be in play here. Care to explain whose position I am misrepresenting there? Or did you just want an excuse to throw back a tit-for-tat "strawman" accusation after I accused you of it with your ludicruous "you would say its WRONG because HITLER said it"?
Btw, Sean Hannity is in 540+ radio stations worldwide and can annoy and enlighten as he goes. [..] He was used, as an example. It's not really important; my point was that (since Hannity apparently resides in the U.S.) that the "this" country you complain about wasn't my country. Thus, any supposed flaws in my logic would not reflect on the U.S.
none of this Validates or Invalidates 3+5 =8. Who said that it did? I certainly didn't.
I said that if x + y = 8, you can't assume that x = 3 and y = 5. That seems quite straightforward to me.
I love simple math exercises to confuse people. [..] These things can confuse those not associated with higher math. I use this as an example if you pare it down to Logical thinking. If you have not been trained in Math, you may end up thinking 1 does not equal 1 and Logic works similiar ways. That's certainly interesting, but ultimately has no bearing on what we were discussing. You basically said that my comment was an "ad hominem" attack. I explained why it wasn't.
Maybe you are cleverer at maths and certain aspects of logic than me- I wouldn't know- but that does not change the fact that you failed to counter my defence of my original position. Or was this an appeal to (your) authority- another logical fallacy?
I would rather discuss Logic than the Daily Mail or any possible April fools jokes. Well, that's your choice, but you were the one who chose to (wrongly) accuse me of a logical fallacy in the first place, so of course I'm going to defend my position. For someone who claims to like logic, you seem to apply it quite badly to real-life arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Note: These episodes contain almost as many gay references as the new "Doctor Who" series. But not quite.
Could be true, could be bollocks, but as long as it gets some page views or shifts a few more papers, I doubt they give a toss. Looks like they succeeded.
Aaaahhhh.... but all the Beatles conspiracy theorists will point out that it's Harrison's death that is actually the hoax. Mystical Harrison had uber-1337 prediction skills and foresaw the rise of the Wii in 1967 (he wanted to get John Lennon to change his song lyrics from "You say you want a Revolution" to "You say you want a Wii" because he knew they'd change the name *even then*).
As its launch draw nearer, Harrison needed all his strength and needed to avoid Beatles obsessives, so he faked his own death. Some had suspicions, and the stress was getting to Harrison, so he had plastic surgery, letting him appear in public again. Of course, no-one would expect him to keep the same name, so in a masterful stroke, that's exactly what he did!!!
Meanwhile, Harrison is no longer on speaking terms with John Lennon after he worked on the rival Playstation 3. Paul McCartney is, as we all know, dead (for real), and Ringo Starr has retired on his "Thomas the Tank Engine" royalties.
The exact same thing applies to blank cassette tapes. Were TDK evil and Apple morally superior because the former once sold a very high percentage of their products (cassettes) to people who wanted to pirate music? If you want to use the iPod to carry your band's music around, then you could just copy it across and use it as a mass storage device. If you want to use it for copyright infringement, then I don't expect you will find much sympathy anywhere. That as may be, lots of companies sell products whose primary use is likely to be piracy. Sony (ironically) sold Hifis with double cassette decks.
I expect to see you getting high and mighty with those companies for not failing to live up to Apple's high moral standards.
Except that (assuming they omitted the feature because it had little "legal" use) Apple probably acted for political reasons, not because they were acting as a moral policeman. DRM is about preventing things that you are legally allowed to do. The proponents might argue otherwise. What about if you buy a crowbar, and it doesn't come with instructions for housebreaking? Outside of a (very) few exceptions and contrived examples, there is no legal form of housebreaking, so the situation isn't the same. This is about not making it easier to do things that you are not legally allowed to do. Do you complain if you buy a car and it doesn't come with a radar jammer so you can avoid speeding fines? No, but you've given me a very good example.
Do *you* complain that GM, Ford and friends sell cars that allow people to break the legal speed limit? After all, 99% of these cars will never be driven outside the country or on private land, so there's no reason for them to provide any level of performance beyond the legal speed limit.
And you're missing the point. Most companies don't act as policemen unless they're legally obliged to or if it's in their interest. In Apple's case, it's the latter- I believe that they *have* reduced functionality in their product that they would otherwise have probably included.
The crux of the matter here is your automatic assumption that only "legal" sharing should be considered. But I'm willing to bet that a large proportion of that 99% of users *would* like to share their music, regardless of the legality. I doubt that adding it would bloat the interface/complexity notably. And Apple aren't responsible for their users' misuse of their products, and they are in the business of selling players, so why wouldn't they include it?
The obvious answer is that the record industry, who they want to cooperate with them, wouldn't like it. Certainly, the functionality is there, but it's nowhere as easy as it might be, and that in itself will stop a lot of people using it. Which is probably the intention...
It's not as bad as DRM, but it still comes from the same mindset.
Unless I'm misreading what you said, it sounds like you still have to copy the music from a "hidden" folder and guess what the hash is supposed to be. If Apple had wanted to make it quick and easy to share/copy playable music, I'm sure they wouldn't have done it that way. Your description sounds like a workaround.
Funny, my first reaction to this was "Looks like this is the new version of the 'switcheurs' troll", and I was right.
BTW, doesn't Ellen Feiss count as a "switcheur" too?
I don't think anyone has reliably claimed that the BBC themselves invented television, but if you want to start arguing for Farnsworth as its inventor, then no to that as well. He (arguably) invented the first wholly electronic television system, but others- including perhaps most notably the famous John Logie Baird- had working television systems before that.
Admittedly these were electromechanical disk-based systems, and a wholly electronic TV system was a major innovation worthy of respect- certainly preferable, and it's unsurprising that it was the system that took off. However, there's a difference between the "inventor of television" full stop, and the "inventor of electronic television"; if there's any doubt that Baird was the former (and that's a can of worms), then Farnsworth definitely wasn't.
If the former, doesn't profiteering from wrongful collection of taxes contravene some federal law and potentially place Blizzard in some very, very deep shit with the IRS (or whoever)? When I noticed the oddity on my statement, I wrote Blizzard's billing department and was told that "Blizzard and its employees cannot be expected to understand tax laws, if you would like additional information, please contact your state Department of Commerce." (Disclaimer: IANAL, and the following is speculation). Whilst it's understandable that most employees won't understand tax law, there should be someone there that *does* (or should) and should have been informed/questioned about the issue as soon as (anyone in) the company was informed that there may be such a problem.... right? Or at least I'd guess that's how a court would see it.
I don't know that much about the U.S. tax authorities, but I do know that you don't want to get on the wrong side of them. I really doubt Blizzard washing their hands or shrugging their shoulders like that would look good for them at all.
Might be worth investigating if you dislike Blizzard's attitude and possible wrongful profiteering.
By this time Yahoo were well-established as the big name in search. One would have thought that the market would have matured to a point where a rival being able to overtake and dominate them like that was unlikely. Of course, computer and Internet use has grown since then, so maybe the market wasn't *that* mature. (By contrast, Altavista may have been one of the first big names when the Internet/Web broke into the public consciousness, but that was such early days that their loss of dominance isn't so significant.)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Yes, lameness filter, I believe that was the original poster's intent. (Ironic that padding a rejected message with the filter's original complaint stops it complaining again).
It's bad enough on its own, but can you imagine the horrific "action shots" featuring out-of-shape wannabe geeks in those... things, if they sold it on ThinkGeek?!
Besides which, it reads "To Go Where No Man Has Gone Before". What happened to the infinitive-splitting "boldly"?- your average nerd *will* complain about such things.
That Ann Summers site is cheesier than a Swiss cheese factory, too.
Dogtanian: "This isn't denying that 3 + 5 = 8. At best we know that the right-hand side is 8, but we aren't sure what the two numbers on the left are. Am I going to take the word of someone with a vested interest in 3s and 5s? Am I heck! They might be 4 + 4, or 6 + 1, or whatever..."
;-(
dharbee: Exactly.
Ermm..... (coughs).... I meant for large values of "6" and "1".
Nevertheless, there was no logical fallacy in my original post. On the contrary, your labelling of my criticism of the Daily Mail's reliability as "attacking the messenger" *was* logically incorrect for reasons I already explained. What I found questionable about the reply was very simple. "I wouldn't dismiss this issue altogether simply because it came from the Daily Mail; " implies that the Daily Mail is bad, but the Daily Mail isnt bad or is it? I think that it's unreliable and has a consistent and demonstrable bias, and in that sense I consider it "bad" from a news point-of-view. The Straw Man argument seems to be in play here. Care to explain whose position I am misrepresenting there? Or did you just want an excuse to throw back a tit-for-tat "strawman" accusation after I accused you of it with your ludicruous "you would say its WRONG because HITLER said it"? Btw, Sean Hannity is in 540+ radio stations worldwide and can annoy and enlighten as he goes. [..] He was used, as an example. It's not really important; my point was that (since Hannity apparently resides in the U.S.) that the "this" country you complain about wasn't my country. Thus, any supposed flaws in my logic would not reflect on the U.S. none of this Validates or Invalidates 3+5 =8. Who said that it did? I certainly didn't.
I said that if x + y = 8, you can't assume that x = 3 and y = 5. That seems quite straightforward to me. I love simple math exercises to confuse people. [..] These things can confuse those not associated with higher math. I use this as an example if you pare it down to Logical thinking. If you have not been trained in Math, you may end up thinking 1 does not equal 1 and Logic works similiar ways. That's certainly interesting, but ultimately has no bearing on what we were discussing. You basically said that my comment was an "ad hominem" attack. I explained why it wasn't.
Maybe you are cleverer at maths and certain aspects of logic than me- I wouldn't know- but that does not change the fact that you failed to counter my defence of my original position. Or was this an appeal to (your) authority- another logical fallacy? I would rather discuss Logic than the Daily Mail or any possible April fools jokes. Well, that's your choice, but you were the one who chose to (wrongly) accuse me of a logical fallacy in the first place, so of course I'm going to defend my position. For someone who claims to like logic, you seem to apply it quite badly to real-life arguments.