Oh my goodness, does it cause cancer? Does it distract drivers and cause them to crash? Does it short out the car's computer and cause the car to stall? What harm does it do to anybody? Oh, it allows people to be tracked...
Now I realize that privacy is a big concern, and many Slashdot users are extra vigilant about their privacy since they know how easily it is to misuse this information, but HARMFUL?!?! Invasive, cause for concern, intrusive, worrisome, a bad step, worth investigating, worth disabling, whatever, all these are acceptable and valid descriptions. But not HARMFUL. Why must everything posted be overblown? Do you really think fewer people would read the article if you had a realistic, nonsensational headline?
The one thing I have never seen asked (let alone answered...) is why this ban has any teeth at all?
The MPAA is not in charge of the Academy Awards in any way. So if a studio wants to send out screeners, why should they listen to the MPAA? The MPAA does not give any benefit to a studio, other than a lobbying force, and its hard to make your lobbying help one studio while hurting another...
And what business does the MPAA have telling the studios how to run their business anyhow? If the studio feels they will lose money by sending out screeners, then don't send out screeners. If they feel they will make money by getting more Oscars, then send out screeners. That is their call. It is their money. It is their movie.
There is nothing in there that hasn't been said on slashdot previously better, with more detail, and more concisely... I don't even know why they bothered writing such a weak rehash of the news.
That entire thread is about a guy who has spent years devoted to helping a project and being unable to make commits, despite begging for the access, to ease the load on both himself and the people currently in charge? And the people currently in charge take that as insulting?
Seems clear that that David Dawes guy is just an egomaniac jerk... If I was working on that project, and he was acting in that manner in representing the project, I'd sure as hell quit the project.
I sure hope the project does die, and Mr. David Dawes can be king of his sandcastle, with nobody to play with... What an attitude.
a and away book book's developers digital ebooks engine. everybody. for for free from fuckup have means need of one parse search security server text text? That That's the the the the the to to to
want would You
Yep, makes sense to me too. Just like that "Letters don't need to be in order" story... Maybe if I left your first and last word in the right spot it'd be readable?
The bad news: Academy members will be the only ones to receive tapes,
to the exclusion of the directors, writers and actors guilds, members of the press and your hipster friend Bob, who knew a guy that knew a guy who could get him copies.
So, you see, the people in the press who give those nice end of year "top 10 lists", and the people who vote in the "LA Film Critics" and "NY Film Critics" and "Golden Globes" awards who don't happen to also be in the Academy will be banned from getting screeners. There are quite a few people who legitimately were getting non-pirated screeners from the studios that will now be banned from getting them.
The Academy Awards are far from the only game in town. Although maybe that will be less true if the ban changes to how the article describes it. (Monopoly, anyone?)
The number 40 hours strikes me as a bit odd, unless Gates is talking about work-hours, and stretching that out to a week of work to get a bug fixed, rather than under 2 days.
I still think he is clearly wrongly counting the start point in Microsoft's favor, but saying that it used to take them 5 days (40 hrs) and now takes then 3 days (24 hrs) seems a whole lot more realistic than saying they fix a bug they received at 1pm by the next 1pm...
However, they also said it was alright to own blacks, and that women couldn't vote, and probably didn't know many Jews or Muslims or atheists. To them, "freedom of religion" meant you could be Catholic OR Protestant.
The "under God" part of the pledge was explicitly added by Congress to show that we weren't atheists, like the damn communists. How could that not be offensive to atheists?
There are already a few models on the market from
Archos, RCA and others, and it seems every month or so another obscure Taiwanese manufacturer announces another offering. Microsoft and Intel have developed a design of their own for others to build.
The original article discussing this software says the driver does check the CD to see if it should be protecting it, and only protects it when it is a CD that has the software on it.
But regardless, I wonder if your point could still be true... Would having a shrinkwrap license that says "we will interfere with your CD" actually indemnify them from this law? Could someone put a shrinkwrap license that says "we will record your keystrokes and use this info to log into your bank accounts" and get away with installing programs on your computer without your approval?
For example, as mentioned, the *maximum* sentence you can receive for one count of copyright infringement is 60 months, while the *minimum* for someone convicted federally of aggravated sexual assault is generally between 70 to 87 months.
The problem with this comes from how "one count" is specified. If you rip all 12 songs from the Metallica CD, that is 12 counts of copyright infringement... It would be like "one count" of sexual assault being applied every time a rapist penetrated.
Available in the recently reissued "The Minority Report and other classic stories".
Involves a society where after a person dies, people get a "resurrection" where a psychic extracts the persons last thoughts from their body's remaining energy.
The story involves someone interferring with the voice's natural order, and having the voice actually come from a satellite lightyears away. Ends up the voice is being totally faked by someone trying to grab attention.
(
which have little bearing on gameplay and mostly just affect appearances and your standing with certain factions)
You see, the emphasis on "bearing on gameplay" implies that your character is different based on which race you are. So when the AC responds "ie blacks are better at sports.. asians math.." he is describing exactly what Release7 is saying. You see, having a "bearing on gameplay" would mean that your character would perform differently based on what race it was.
Racism falls under "your standing with certain factions," which the article clearly references. It is saying that your race does not affect your characters abilities, but it will affect other people's attitudes towards you. Which sounds like a pretty apt, non-trolly, non-racist viewpoint.
"Try being more subtle"? I think he was already too subtle for you...
Patents seem to be so prevalent these days for minor advances to standard procedures by adding new technology, that I almost wonder if the first farmer to attach a GPS to his operation could get away with patenting it, and then stopping any other farmer from using the same methodology.
It seems that more thought actually went into the GPS farming than into many recent computer patents, like Apple's "fast user switching" or any of the other process patents mentioned on Slashdot. Are farmers just not patenting because they aren't in technology? (Or is this process actually patented and it just wasn't mentioned...)
You can add your "buddies", and then do things like "where is joe" (down to around 2 blocks) or "find nearest friend" amongst them all. Still haven't really found a practicle use for it, but I guess that's also part of the point of the article: Give users the option, and eventually they'll figure out innovative uses for it.
You release a thesis that interested people can read.
You get job offers.
Now, if the government classifies his document, and lets industry use it to prevent attacks, then #2 & #3 still happen. All that doesn't happen is his letters.
So what's he lose out on? You think that places that employ people for "research and teaching" aren't going to hire him due to his thesis "only" being classified? Looks to me like the only thing he loses is the letters.
"You are making his work seem trivial." Uh, no. Unlike most thesises, which ARE trivial, we are seeing the actual impact his thesis can have. And don't want that information available to any shmuck who feels like grabbing it.
You understand overflow, right? There is a maximum integer that can be stored in a variable, and if you "overflow" this maximum amount, the number wraps around. So 0xffff + 0x0003 = 0x0002.
Underflow is the same, but opposite, making it so you wrap from near zero to a very big number... You say the font size is 0x0003, and the X-Box subtracts 0x0004, and ends up thinking it needs to read in 0xffff more data from the font file...
Both just involved wrapping around the maximum/minimum values a variable can hold.
Sounds like Speakeasy's real benefit comes from the fact that the customers will be directing their questions to their local connection rather than calling up Speakeasy's support line. That benefit alone probably outweighs any losses they are going to incur.
BTW, speeding is illegal not because it is unsafe or because thats how the cops make money (though both are probably true) but because that is what we in the democracy wanted.
LOL, yeah, right... Thats why we have the DMCA and Software Patents and all those other laws that/. people love, right?
It's funny how the "slower" people always clammor that the "faster" people should "think of others". When I'm driving, I'm constantly being forced to think of others... The "others" being people who are blocking the left lane, and who are not thinking of the people behind them...
Let someone merge, don't tailgate, don't pass on the right, don't pretend to be the most important person on the road and we'll all get where we are going just fine.
I let people merge all the time. I wouldn't tailgate or pass on the right if the person in front of me, slower than me, would move right (oh, and 99% of the time, they are speeding too, so don't give me the "they are obeying the law and you are breaking it" crap; they just feel that they know the fastest safe speed and should enforce it themselves...). And I definitely don't pretend to be the most important person on the road. I feel everybody should drive as fast as they want to, and allow everyone else to drive as fast as they want to. This requires lane discipline to achieve, and people need to pick lanes appropriate to their speed and to traffic density.
It being satellite and all. Setting up additional dishes all across your roof is not going to have any effect on anyone else's reception. No backfeeding of signal, no leaking signal, etc. This may be true of cable, but not satellite.
When you are out shopping at the supermarket, do you block the entire aisle with your cart and lecture the people trying to shop faster than you that you all still need to wait at the checkout counter? Maybe if they had allotted enough time to shop at the proper, slow, speed then they wouldn't need to be in a rush? In the supermarket they can say "excuse me" or push your cart out of the way as you pick between shapes of Mac & Cheese. On the roads, all we have is horns and lights.
Why do you declare that just because someone wants to go faster than you, that they are being the ass?
Since many people believe that their needs are more important than the needs of the whole (as you have so clearly stated in your post) then everyone who believes that tries to go faster than the average.
Ordinarily this would raise the average speed. But clearly that isn't the case. Because as speed increases, safety demands that the space between cars needs to increase... this artificially inflates the traffic density numbers (because cars are treated as being "bigger" than they actually are) and so the whole road slows down.
That is some ingenius logic. Lets see if I follow it: By driving 100 MPH, we are making it so traffic only goes 50 MPH. But then, how are we driving 100 MPH? Is traffic psychic and can tell how fast we want to be driving?
I just came back from England, and once again I was impressed by how much better a road system works when the drivers truly share the road, and slower traffic moves out of the fast lane.
If a faster car is coming up behind you, they are driving faster than you! (This seems obvious, but people don't seem to understand it...) If you switch to the slower lane and let them pass you, it won't slow you down, because you can get back in right behind them, and they will disappear since THEY ARE FASTER THAN YOU. Now, for you to change lanes requires a MUCH smaller gap than for them to pass you on the right. Plus, them passing on the right would involve them driving MUCH faster in order to pass you as the gap moves, and probably entail them getting closer to your car and the car in the right lane than everyone would prefer.
So share the road? Yeah, please. If someone wants to pass you, share the fast lane with them and get out of their way. That way they won't be tailgating you or cutting you off or passing you on the right at high speeds. You can still drive as slow as you want to. Just don't get upset at us because we disagree with your "5MPH over the limit is as fast as is safe".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my goodness, does it cause cancer? Does it distract drivers and cause them to crash? Does it short out the car's computer and cause the car to stall? What harm does it do to anybody? Oh, it allows people to be tracked...
Now I realize that privacy is a big concern, and many Slashdot users are extra vigilant about their privacy since they know how easily it is to misuse this information, but HARMFUL?!?! Invasive, cause for concern, intrusive, worrisome, a bad step, worth investigating, worth disabling, whatever, all these are acceptable and valid descriptions. But not HARMFUL. Why must everything posted be overblown? Do you really think fewer people would read the article if you had a realistic, nonsensational headline?
How about a little accuracy...
People ignore the data in that spectrum, and its right in front of their eyes!
The MPAA is not in charge of the Academy Awards in any way. So if a studio wants to send out screeners, why should they listen to the MPAA? The MPAA does not give any benefit to a studio, other than a lobbying force, and its hard to make your lobbying help one studio while hurting another...
And what business does the MPAA have telling the studios how to run their business anyhow? If the studio feels they will lose money by sending out screeners, then don't send out screeners. If they feel they will make money by getting more Oscars, then send out screeners. That is their call. It is their money. It is their movie.
What's actually stopping them?
There is nothing in there that hasn't been said on slashdot previously better, with more detail, and more concisely... I don't even know why they bothered writing such a weak rehash of the news.
Seems clear that that David Dawes guy is just an egomaniac jerk... If I was working on that project, and he was acting in that manner in representing the project, I'd sure as hell quit the project.
I sure hope the project does die, and Mr. David Dawes can be king of his sandcastle, with nobody to play with... What an attitude.
a and away book book's developers digital ebooks engine. everybody. for for free from fuckup have means need of one parse search security server text text? That That's the the the the the to to to want would You Yep, makes sense to me too. Just like that "Letters don't need to be in order" story... Maybe if I left your first and last word in the right spot it'd be readable?
The Academy Awards are far from the only game in town. Although maybe that will be less true if the ban changes to how the article describes it. (Monopoly, anyone?)
I still think he is clearly wrongly counting the start point in Microsoft's favor, but saying that it used to take them 5 days (40 hrs) and now takes then 3 days (24 hrs) seems a whole lot more realistic than saying they fix a bug they received at 1pm by the next 1pm...
The "under God" part of the pledge was explicitly added by Congress to show that we weren't atheists, like the damn communists. How could that not be offensive to atheists?
But regardless, I wonder if your point could still be true... Would having a shrinkwrap license that says "we will interfere with your CD" actually indemnify them from this law? Could someone put a shrinkwrap license that says "we will record your keystrokes and use this info to log into your bank accounts" and get away with installing programs on your computer without your approval?
Involves a society where after a person dies, people get a "resurrection" where a psychic extracts the persons last thoughts from their body's remaining energy.
The story involves someone interferring with the voice's natural order, and having the voice actually come from a satellite lightyears away. Ends up the voice is being totally faked by someone trying to grab attention.
Sorta like this article...
Racism falls under "your standing with certain factions," which the article clearly references. It is saying that your race does not affect your characters abilities, but it will affect other people's attitudes towards you. Which sounds like a pretty apt, non-trolly, non-racist viewpoint.
"Try being more subtle"? I think he was already too subtle for you...
It seems that more thought actually went into the GPS farming than into many recent computer patents, like Apple's "fast user switching" or any of the other process patents mentioned on Slashdot. Are farmers just not patenting because they aren't in technology? (Or is this process actually patented and it just wasn't mentioned...)
You can add your "buddies", and then do things like "where is joe" (down to around 2 blocks) or "find nearest friend" amongst them all. Still haven't really found a practicle use for it, but I guess that's also part of the point of the article: Give users the option, and eventually they'll figure out innovative uses for it.
You get a paper and some letters after your name.
You release a thesis that interested people can read.
You get job offers.
Now, if the government classifies his document, and lets industry use it to prevent attacks, then #2 & #3 still happen. All that doesn't happen is his letters.
So what's he lose out on? You think that places that employ people for "research and teaching" aren't going to hire him due to his thesis "only" being classified? Looks to me like the only thing he loses is the letters.
"You are making his work seem trivial." Uh, no. Unlike most thesises, which ARE trivial, we are seeing the actual impact his thesis can have. And don't want that information available to any shmuck who feels like grabbing it.
Underflow is the same, but opposite, making it so you wrap from near zero to a very big number... You say the font size is 0x0003, and the X-Box subtracts 0x0004, and ends up thinking it needs to read in 0xffff more data from the font file...
Both just involved wrapping around the maximum/minimum values a variable can hold.
Oh wait, the would entail people reading the article...
Sounds like Speakeasy's real benefit comes from the fact that the customers will be directing their questions to their local connection rather than calling up Speakeasy's support line. That benefit alone probably outweighs any losses they are going to incur.
It's funny how the "slower" people always clammor that the "faster" people should "think of others". When I'm driving, I'm constantly being forced to think of others... The "others" being people who are blocking the left lane, and who are not thinking of the people behind them...
I let people merge all the time. I wouldn't tailgate or pass on the right if the person in front of me, slower than me, would move right (oh, and 99% of the time, they are speeding too, so don't give me the "they are obeying the law and you are breaking it" crap; they just feel that they know the fastest safe speed and should enforce it themselves...). And I definitely don't pretend to be the most important person on the road. I feel everybody should drive as fast as they want to, and allow everyone else to drive as fast as they want to. This requires lane discipline to achieve, and people need to pick lanes appropriate to their speed and to traffic density.It being satellite and all. Setting up additional dishes all across your roof is not going to have any effect on anyone else's reception. No backfeeding of signal, no leaking signal, etc. This may be true of cable, but not satellite.
Why do you declare that just because someone wants to go faster than you, that they are being the ass?
That is some ingenius logic. Lets see if I follow it: By driving 100 MPH, we are making it so traffic only goes 50 MPH. But then, how are we driving 100 MPH? Is traffic psychic and can tell how fast we want to be driving?I just came back from England, and once again I was impressed by how much better a road system works when the drivers truly share the road, and slower traffic moves out of the fast lane.
If a faster car is coming up behind you, they are driving faster than you! (This seems obvious, but people don't seem to understand it...) If you switch to the slower lane and let them pass you, it won't slow you down, because you can get back in right behind them, and they will disappear since THEY ARE FASTER THAN YOU. Now, for you to change lanes requires a MUCH smaller gap than for them to pass you on the right. Plus, them passing on the right would involve them driving MUCH faster in order to pass you as the gap moves, and probably entail them getting closer to your car and the car in the right lane than everyone would prefer.
So share the road? Yeah, please. If someone wants to pass you, share the fast lane with them and get out of their way. That way they won't be tailgating you or cutting you off or passing you on the right at high speeds. You can still drive as slow as you want to. Just don't get upset at us because we disagree with your "5MPH over the limit is as fast as is safe".
Then again /. people probably have a "cypherphunks" macro key on their keyboard...