Yes, that's exactly what he said. Or, no wait, it's not.
Think you could manage to attack his argument instead of baseless ad hominem accusations of bias? He(?) said he wouldn't have even applied if not for her. Sounds like she'd have his support even if he hadn't been accepted.
I am looking. On this page alone I see twenty-one embedded images--a far cry from your alleged zero--one of which is not on slashdot.org. Who is this m1.2mdn.net? Some advertising company I can't identify.
Turning off Javascript is not enough to protect your privacy. Block images from third party servers (or disable all images) and strip your referral header, just for starters.
No, they replaced the new images because the old ones were higher resolution. The new images are still available. Here's an explanation on Google's blog. It would be nice if they had it show the old images when you zoom in and otherwise show the newer ones, but that would probably be a pain to implement.
No matter how you look at this, that's a total load of crap. This has nothing, nothing to do with property rights.
You're right. Blizzard's nutty copyright claim is not about property rights. (Well, I guess copyright is about IP rights.) But I'm not trying to defend their copyright claims. I merely posted to object to the claim that cheaters are blameless because cheating was technically possible, that if there's a bug, it's okay to exploit it because the bug holds any and all blame. My even bringing up WoWGlider was probably a mistake since it makes it sound like I'm being on-topic and siding with Blizzard. I don't mean to do that. I'm saying it is wrong to use WoWGlider because you agree not to when you access their gaming servers--not for copyright reasons.
No, if I agree, than I'm violating your contract. Not your rights.
I think that if you freely enter into a contract with me, then your breaking that contract violates my rights. If not, why is violating a contract wrong? It is wrong, isn't it? Your original post seems to suggest that it's not, because I didn't implement perfect security to prevent you from reading Shakespearean plays. You're not to blame, only my poor security is?
There is a big difference between loss of revenue and murder.
That's completely irrelevant. The point is simply that blame is non-competitive. Blame is always non-competitive.
It is the government's job to protect against murder, while the government has no business protecting profits.
I'm not saying it's their job to protect profits. What they do does protect profits, but so does banning shoplifting. (I know I shouldn't use such an analogy because now a hundred idiots are going to pop up to point out that WoWGlider isn't stealings. It isn't. I'm not saying it is.) The government has a responsibility to protect a lot of rights. I have more rights than just a right to not be murdered. I have a right to control how my property is used, and one rule Blizzard has made regarding their property is that when playing on their server, you may not use the WoWGlider. This isn't about loss of revenue; this is about basic property rights.
Look at it this way: If I say I'll let you use my computer so long as you don't use it to read Shakespearean plays, then when you use my computer to read Shakespearean plays, you're violating my rights. Even if I don't find out about it. It doesn't matter why I don't want you using it for that. Maybe I hate Shakespeare and want all knowledge of his works to die out. Maybe I jut like making arbitrary rules. Doesn't matter. So long as you're using my computer, you have to follow my rules, however stupid they may be. When you play WoW, you're using their computers, and if they want to say 'You can't name your character "Rosencrantz" or "Guildenstern" then you can't.' And if they say 'You can't use WoWGlider to control your character, you can't. Whether doing so hurts them financially is completely irrelevant.
You're doing stuff on Blizzard's servers that they expressly prohibit you from doing. If I say you can come into my house so long as you don't play loud music, and then you come into my house and play loud music, you'll get in trouble. People have a right to dictate what is done on their computers. This principle doesn't magic away when the computer is a server. Unlike the players, Blizzard never agreed to revoke control over their own machines.
Cheating software is not a sale across the street from your competitor. Cheating software is selling 'Shoplifting from my Competitor for Dummies'. Or, if you object to the 'cheating=stealing comparison, a guide for sneaking into the cinema across the street from yours. When I hold a sale, it might hurt your business, but what I sell are not tools for illegally hurting your business.
They have it pretty easy and I don't feel sorry for them. if they don't like their jobs, then they can quit and work somewhere else.
That's exactly the point. Most competent people will and the only people left are people who really, really enjoy working with the kids and don't care much about money (not many people), and incompetent people.
You seem to be looking at this as 'If you're underpaid, it's your own fault for choosing that career.' But the people you're arguing against aren't crying about the poor teachers. They're crying about the poor students stuck with incompetent teachers. Teaching is not a career path we want avoided by smart people.
How many of the people in the documentary were climatologists? We don't need a consensus from economicists. Though some of those people really are in their field of expertise, it seems. (Yes, I just cited a Slashdot comment, and I am ashamed. This one reply is also worth noting.)
Sure it's selling like hotcakes, pre-installed. People buy new computers and then pay me to uninstall Vista and replace it with XP. I wasn't working in the industry when XP came out, but I don't think this was occurring so much back then. I'm sure someone here hasbeen paid to downgrade to 98, but was this the norm in the early days of XP?
Supplier: No one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars.
Wal-Mart: We want to sell it for X-1 dollars. If we can't, we won't bother stocking it at all.
Supplier: Oops, we meant to say that no one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars, unless they're Wal-Mart, who can sell it for X-1 dollars.
Maybe this will be made illegal, but until then, this is how it will work. Walmart is the one with the power in this situation.
I take it you consider Neighborhood Watch programs to be evil and un-American? Or is it only wrong if you get rewarded?
(or were you being serious? One can never be sure... Or maybe I completely missed the point and Neighborhood Watches already existing was your entire point.)
There is a lot of stuff that gets written, but doesn't get passed.
There's not a lot of stuff thst gets written, passed by the House, passed by the Senate, makes it through the Conference Committee, and is then vetoed by the President. Clinton did veto 36-37 bills in total, with only two overridden, but still, vetoes aren't exactly daily occurrences in most administrations, even when the Congress and Whitehouse are opposing parties. I tend to blame the Legislature more for legislation than I blame the Executive branch, though they're certainly both responsible for it. Especially if they push for it.
The new reincarnation is being treated as a different seri^H^H^H^Hprogramme from the old in the story. I'm simply making it clear for those wondering that it's a difference in language. Not the person I was replying to, I would assume. I should have made that clear.
it shouldn't. I can't effectively unpublish my magazine, true, but if you republish my magazine, you're guilty of copyright infringement. My gaining the ability to unpublish should not grant you the ability to republish. (One could argue that what Archive.org is analogous to simply passing on the same magazine I sent them, not copies. I think the analogy has reached its limits there, though, as republishing v. passing on the copy I published is largely a non-distinction with web content, but I could probably be convinced otherwise.)
Slashdot Mirror
Got an basis for that claim? They're not the reasons he gave.
Yes, that's exactly what he said. Or, no wait, it's not.
Think you could manage to attack his argument instead of baseless ad hominem accusations of bias? He(?) said he wouldn't have even applied if not for her. Sounds like she'd have his support even if he hadn't been accepted.
Heh. That'll teach me not to try DNS lookups when I have a domain name. :-)
I am looking. On this page alone I see twenty-one embedded images--a far cry from your alleged zero--one of which is not on slashdot.org. Who is this m1.2mdn.net? Some advertising company I can't identify.
Turning off Javascript is not enough to protect your privacy. Block images from third party servers (or disable all images) and strip your referral header, just for starters.
Oh, well, never mind then. That only leaves images, iframes, and other embedded crap. Nothing like that here on Slashdot.
Is this human flesh or other?
Nice to know you've been paying attention. After all, the RIAA never, ever causes trouble for those who are actually innocent, right?
See, that's a problem for me. From the story it sounds like Microsoft is the lion, but in my heart, I know Microsoft will always be an ass.
He didn't say anything about banning guns. He commented on the fact that we're all concerned with only those that happen in groups.
Don't try to confuse the issue by falsely attributing political claims to the poster and then going into an off-topic rant criticising him for it.
No, they replaced the new images because the old ones were higher resolution. The new images are still available. Here's an explanation on Google's blog. It would be nice if they had it show the old images when you zoom in and otherwise show the newer ones, but that would probably be a pain to implement.
You're right. Blizzard's nutty copyright claim is not about property rights. (Well, I guess copyright is about IP rights.) But I'm not trying to defend their copyright claims. I merely posted to object to the claim that cheaters are blameless because cheating was technically possible, that if there's a bug, it's okay to exploit it because the bug holds any and all blame. My even bringing up WoWGlider was probably a mistake since it makes it sound like I'm being on-topic and siding with Blizzard. I don't mean to do that. I'm saying it is wrong to use WoWGlider because you agree not to when you access their gaming servers--not for copyright reasons.
I think that if you freely enter into a contract with me, then your breaking that contract violates my rights. If not, why is violating a contract wrong? It is wrong, isn't it? Your original post seems to suggest that it's not, because I didn't implement perfect security to prevent you from reading Shakespearean plays. You're not to blame, only my poor security is?
That's completely irrelevant. The point is simply that blame is non-competitive. Blame is always non-competitive.
I'm not saying it's their job to protect profits. What they do does protect profits, but so does banning shoplifting. (I know I shouldn't use such an analogy because now a hundred idiots are going to pop up to point out that WoWGlider isn't stealings. It isn't. I'm not saying it is.) The government has a responsibility to protect a lot of rights. I have more rights than just a right to not be murdered. I have a right to control how my property is used, and one rule Blizzard has made regarding their property is that when playing on their server, you may not use the WoWGlider. This isn't about loss of revenue; this is about basic property rights.
Look at it this way: If I say I'll let you use my computer so long as you don't use it to read Shakespearean plays, then when you use my computer to read Shakespearean plays, you're violating my rights. Even if I don't find out about it. It doesn't matter why I don't want you using it for that. Maybe I hate Shakespeare and want all knowledge of his works to die out. Maybe I jut like making arbitrary rules. Doesn't matter. So long as you're using my computer, you have to follow my rules, however stupid they may be. When you play WoW, you're using their computers, and if they want to say 'You can't name your character "Rosencrantz" or "Guildenstern" then you can't.' And if they say 'You can't use WoWGlider to control your character, you can't. Whether doing so hurts them financially is completely irrelevant.
You're doing stuff on Blizzard's servers that they expressly prohibit you from doing. If I say you can come into my house so long as you don't play loud music, and then you come into my house and play loud music, you'll get in trouble. People have a right to dictate what is done on their computers. This principle doesn't magic away when the computer is a server. Unlike the players, Blizzard never agreed to revoke control over their own machines.
That is possibly the dumbest, most irresponsible thing I've ever heard, and there's been some stiff competition these past few years.
Blame is a non-competitive. If ten people get together to murder someone, do they each only get one tenth the normal sentence?
Cheating software is not a sale across the street from your competitor. Cheating software is selling 'Shoplifting from my Competitor for Dummies'. Or, if you object to the 'cheating=stealing comparison, a guide for sneaking into the cinema across the street from yours. When I hold a sale, it might hurt your business, but what I sell are not tools for illegally hurting your business.
That's exactly the point. Most competent people will and the only people left are people who really, really enjoy working with the kids and don't care much about money (not many people), and incompetent people.
You seem to be looking at this as 'If you're underpaid, it's your own fault for choosing that career.' But the people you're arguing against aren't crying about the poor teachers. They're crying about the poor students stuck with incompetent teachers. Teaching is not a career path we want avoided by smart people.
How many of the people in the documentary were climatologists? We don't need a consensus from economicists. Though some of those people really are in their field of expertise, it seems. (Yes, I just cited a Slashdot comment, and I am ashamed. This one reply is also worth noting.)
Some would say being our single most important sea port counters a lot of risk.
No, a city built in an area that eventually sank below sea level.
Congratulations on completely missing your parent's point. It's really quite impressive.
Sure it's selling like hotcakes, pre-installed. People buy new computers and then pay me to uninstall Vista and replace it with XP. I wasn't working in the industry when XP came out, but I don't think this was occurring so much back then. I'm sure someone here hasbeen paid to downgrade to 98, but was this the norm in the early days of XP?
Supplier: No one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars.
Maybe this will be made illegal, but until then, this is how it will work. Walmart is the one with the power in this situation.Wal-Mart: We want to sell it for X-1 dollars. If we can't, we won't bother stocking it at all.
Supplier: Oops, we meant to say that no one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars, unless they're Wal-Mart, who can sell it for X-1 dollars.
I take it you consider Neighborhood Watch programs to be evil and un-American? Or is it only wrong if you get rewarded?
(or were you being serious? One can never be sure... Or maybe I completely missed the point and Neighborhood Watches already existing was your entire point.)
There's not a lot of stuff thst gets written, passed by the House, passed by the Senate, makes it through the Conference Committee, and is then vetoed by the President. Clinton did veto 36-37 bills in total, with only two overridden, but still, vetoes aren't exactly daily occurrences in most administrations, even when the Congress and Whitehouse are opposing parties. I tend to blame the Legislature more for legislation than I blame the Executive branch, though they're certainly both responsible for it. Especially if they push for it.
The new reincarnation is being treated as a different seri^H^H^H^Hprogramme from the old in the story. I'm simply making it clear for those wondering that it's a difference in language. Not the person I was replying to, I would assume. I should have made that clear.
it shouldn't. I can't effectively unpublish my magazine, true, but if you republish my magazine, you're guilty of copyright infringement. My gaining the ability to unpublish should not grant you the ability to republish. (One could argue that what Archive.org is analogous to simply passing on the same magazine I sent them, not copies. I think the analogy has reached its limits there, though, as republishing v. passing on the copy I published is largely a non-distinction with web content, but I could probably be convinced otherwise.)