What an idiot - doesn't he realize how wonderful it is that technology makes it possible for us to avoid paying the authors we like as much money as we used to?
What an idiot indeed. He should be asking for assistance from society in keeping authors writing now that an after-market-service that used to generate income for them has been rendered obsolete. If he did, our greed for more written works would prompt us to attempt to help him.
Instead, he's asking that we be forced to pay a third party to provide a service to us that modern tools permit us to provide for ourselves. This causes our greed to prompt us to attack him, because complying with his request means needlessly throwing away our own resources for no benefit.
Here's a piece of advice to those representing creators: Focus your attention on the goal instead of attempting to treat the mechanism by which you historically met your goals as though they were the actual goal. We genuinely don't want you to stop writing, singing, painting, designing, filming, dancing and acting, and we genuinely don't want you to starve or freeze to death. It is your narrowmindedness that places you in conflict with us, and we outnumber you. So, grow up and lets deal with the realities of the situation like rational people, hey?
What is wrong with companies collecting royalties on the products that invented?
They participated in a consortium whose purpose was to create open standards so everyone on earth could benefit from commodity pricing, and they filed patent protection on processes secretly while leading the members of the consortium to believe that they were operating in good faith.
They didn't create new technology and ask people if they thought it was fair at this price. They held an industry hostage with lies and deceit. They're garden variety con-artists who belong hanging by their necks from a tree at a crossroads.
Personally, I feel the evidence indicates that the case was presented in this way because those presenting the case were bought off.
You put forth that MS can advertise their product "Vista" as having specific features, then substitute some other software with the same "Vista" label on it and claim that they are equivalent because they are labeled the same.
Then, they use this equivalence to substantiate a claim that hardware that doesn't support the features that "Vista" was advertised to possess is nevertheless still "fit for purpose".
"Did they pay more for a Vista capable computer than they would have paid for a normal computer" is a red herring. "Would they have bought a computer at all if they had known it wasn't going to support the features that Vista was advertised to have?" is the real question.
Every person who bought one of those machines was lied to about what they could do with it, and was unwise to purchase that hardware at all, because it was poorly made junk. Therefore, they are all the same. They all got the old switcheroo, and bean counting is irrelevant.
Which is why I feel the evidence indicates that the case was presented in this way because those presenting the case were bought off. To create a precedent that favors the guilty before those wronged by the guilty present a sane and reasonable argument. This whole thing is corrupt through and through.
find a bicycle that is actually just the basic version of a car, then perhaps your argument might mean something. There is a version of Vista those machines would run with, and it is actually Vista...not DOS, not Win3.1, but Vista.
Yeah, more bullshit and liars games... I can take a piece of dog shit, stick it in a box and put a Vista sticker on it. If I advertise that I'm selling Vista for $10 and send you this box, was I honest, or was I not?
Similarly, Microsoft made a lot of grand claims about what Vista can do, in an effort to get people to upgrade. Now, it's one thing to say, "You need to pay for the top-of-the-line version if you wish to have access to all the functionality, but the only barrier holding you back from having access is your choice to pay for the extra features."
It's another thing to say "That Vista-Capable machine you bought is not capable of using the features that we advertised, sorry, we can sell you the upgraded software, but you won't be able to use it."
This is where the fine line between gouging and fraud lies. And they are very clearly on the fraud side of the line.
The arguments are flawed. It doesn't matter if they paid more or not. The machines were advertised as being fit for a specific purpose, and they are not fit for that purpose. If I order a $200 car, and someone sends me a $200 bicycle, the fact that it was a fair price for a bicycle is rather irrelevant.
What the fuck does all this crap about forks and threads have to do with Microsoft and their efforts to secure your computer against you?
There's a bunch of bullshit there about "Multiple Distrusting Principles". What that means is a bunch of corporate organizations who don't trust you, and don't want you to remain in control of your machine.
This isn't about some website engaging in cross site scripting attacks and screwing with users. This isn't about user security at all.
What this is about is allowing select, approved types of mashups to occur while still keeping everything totally locked down. It's about making not having control over your own machine somewhat palatable so maybe you'll be dumb enough to buy into this virtual prison system.
This is for those assholes who abuse Flash to keep you from downloading media to your hard drive for later viewing, so to speak. They see all this Web 2.0 stuff going on, and they want to get in on the action, but they don't want to remove the locks to get there. They want them made stronger.
Goddamn I'd love to burn those motherfuckers at the stake.
Ok, go back to your inane wank about forks and processes... I'm done ranting here.
Trouble is, the internet doesn't have to be a good replacement in order to end up replacing newspapers. If the Times could only afford to embed reporters in dusty warzones because of classified ad revenue, and their classifieds department has been gutted, well, I guess there won't be any more reporters out there, will there?
That is my concern. I hope that the virtues of newspapers will carry through; but it is far from assured. Things like foreign and political reporting, and stuff that pisses off possible advertisers, are socially vital; but they are cost centers in the strictly financial sense. They could, fairly easily, end up just being eliminated, without replacement.
The time when privately run, for profit news actually served a socially noble purpose, if they ever did exist, are long gone.
If you want such things to exist, they need to be socialized, and they need to be transparent, and accountable, and dedicated exclusively to a higher social purpose. Even then it's hard to prevent them being corrupted.
Media companies are propaganda machines. They're staffed by the people who brought you the cold war. They're nothing but groups of evil manipulators, and it's good that they're going to die.
You are opting in to the update, not the Firefox extension. That's installed silently as part of the update. The only reason it was detected was that Firefox told him that it had been installed, after the fact. If it were, as you claim, opt-in, he would have been asked if he wanted it before it was installed. See the difference?
I can't test this myself, don't have a Windows machine here, but every time I've installed Java on Windows in the past, it scanned my machine and asked me if I wanted to install support into each of my browsers, which generally consisted of Firefox and IE. And after I said yes, it did some mucking about in the internals of my browsers to make them interact properly with JRE.
If you already did this, in the past, then you already gave them consent to integrate into your browser. So, the difference is, now you can see the evidence in your Add-On's list, where before you couldn't.
So, this doesn't resemble MS's stunt at all. Nice move posting a big fat broken link right at the top of the story, by the way. Smooth...
Then, once I've actually built the next eBay or whatever, it might be worth considering building my own datacenter. But it's just not cost-effective for a small app -- I don't even need an entire machine, and I certainly don't want to be buying several machines (and several network connections, for redundancy), UPS, cooling, etc, when I'm still effectively a Mom&Pop operation.
I mean, I get it -- it would be cool to have all that stuff. But it would be a lot of work to maintain, and it'd be a waste of money, considering the alternatives.
If you say so... not hard to put together a pair of load balancers, a few servers running apache2 and memcache and a few database servers with replication for under 5 grand if you don't mind using refurbished computers to get started... that's an awful lot of grunt and enough redundancy to more than make up for the cheap consumer grade hardware.
The unfortunate reality is that, depending on what happens, this could conceivably be construed as either (a) evidence of bad faith (which courts really don't like) or (b) an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs or plaintiff witnesses, which would be a MAJOR problem for the defense (who would then be under the gun to prove total noninvolvement).
No, it's only intimidation if you don't follow through. If you follow through, it's assault. Can't say what effect it's going to have on those teenagers, don't really think they're going to give too much of a shit, but it could prove a major problem for the plaintiffs being assaulted by the angry public.
Doesn't it seem like it's time for these business people, judges, lawyers, etc to retire, permanently, and hand over the reins of power? Seems that way to me...
That is something you're going to have to live with, if your software is going to be a web application, unless you really want to start building your own datacenter.
I'm confused... how could you be in the business of building web applications and not have a million and one ideas of cool things you could do with your own datacenter? Isn't building that one golden application that pays for your datacenter so you can unleash your other mad-scientist type plans on the world the holy grail, so to speak?
Cease fire means stop for now because good may come of it, but if it doesn't, the victor is usually the one who strikes first and hard at the end of the cease fire while the enemy is adjusting their shit.
But really, this doesn't really make me hate Hulu. They've got a solid business model - Provide content to US viewers (or people using a US-based proxy) and provide ad-supported content based on the restrictions imposed by the content providers. What's so wrong about that?
It's disingenuous. They should exercise some integrity and print their clients propaganda on pieces of paper to be dropped from military aircraft instead of trying to pass it off as entertainment.
InnoDB does support foreign key constraints. (And I'll mention that it has ACID transactions as well, since you may not know that either.)
Well, actually, InnoDB was made by another group and is currently "owned" by Oracle if I'm not mistaken. Regardless, I remember when they didn't have these things, and they constantly put forth that they were some backwards way of doing things that was unjustified and that if you were doing things right, you didn't need them. This isn't about features. It's about trust.
I know I shouldn't reply to a sig, but... you've got it all wrong.
The Fool, conscious of his own ignorance, looks at the world and attempts to adapt himself. When he does so effectively, he becomes the Wise and stops looking at the world. Then when the world changes, the Wise must become Fools again before they can begin to become Wise again. Until they succeed, they're the Insane.
There is no such thing as progress, there is only the changing external world and our endless struggle to effectively mirror it within our internal world.
So you want people to be able to call the shelter, whom also blocks their number? Show up with a nice "XXX Women's Shelter" On call display so that the women can be hunted down?
How else are we supposed to cut their heads off with our swords?
So, by that logic, if I pick a few specks of dirt out of my bowl of rice, I'm not actually removing the dirt, I'm just creating a deterrent to future specks of dirt.
However, a judge is still a human with basic rights. The punishment has to fit the crime actually committed (not the worst-case scenario that we can somehow call similar), and while this crime was severe, it does not warrant a death sentence.
Are you Jewish or something? Eye for an eye?
That's bullshit. There are certain standards that a person must meet to be a person, and not a dangerous wild animal in our midst. If they don't meet them, they should be shot down like a dog and removed from society. If their violation is such that it doesn't render then dangerous to the group, then they should be given no punishment at all, but rather assisted to meet the standards.
If a bear mauls someones face, we don't cut the bear's muzzle off... we kill the bear and we bury it. Same thing.
Why is it that it's illegal to gamble with your electoral vote, and it's illegal to give weapons to strangers, but it's ok to piss your money away in a casino?
Seriously, what makes money different from a vote or a gun? You're obligated to take responsibility for those things because it's reckless endangerment of your fellow man if you don't... what makes people think money is different?
Seems to me that going to a casino in the first place is just plain negligent...
The point is not to undo anything. Nothing can be undone. The point is to permanently remove malignant antisocial entities from the society with assurances that they will not resurface.
To allow a system which is corrupt to deal with its own corruption fixes nothing. The people must deal with the system with their own hands, they must be connected to the events. They must grow up and take responsibility for their society, or they will continue to be trampled by it.
Slashdot Mirror
What an idiot - doesn't he realize how wonderful it is that technology makes it possible for us to avoid paying the authors we like as much money as we used to?
What an idiot indeed. He should be asking for assistance from society in keeping authors writing now that an after-market-service that used to generate income for them has been rendered obsolete. If he did, our greed for more written works would prompt us to attempt to help him.
Instead, he's asking that we be forced to pay a third party to provide a service to us that modern tools permit us to provide for ourselves. This causes our greed to prompt us to attack him, because complying with his request means needlessly throwing away our own resources for no benefit.
Here's a piece of advice to those representing creators: Focus your attention on the goal instead of attempting to treat the mechanism by which you historically met your goals as though they were the actual goal. We genuinely don't want you to stop writing, singing, painting, designing, filming, dancing and acting, and we genuinely don't want you to starve or freeze to death. It is your narrowmindedness that places you in conflict with us, and we outnumber you. So, grow up and lets deal with the realities of the situation like rational people, hey?
What is wrong with companies collecting royalties on the products that invented?
They participated in a consortium whose purpose was to create open standards so everyone on earth could benefit from commodity pricing, and they filed patent protection on processes secretly while leading the members of the consortium to believe that they were operating in good faith.
They didn't create new technology and ask people if they thought it was fair at this price. They held an industry hostage with lies and deceit. They're garden variety con-artists who belong hanging by their necks from a tree at a crossroads.
Personally, I feel the evidence indicates that the case was presented in this way because those presenting the case were bought off.
You put forth that MS can advertise their product "Vista" as having specific features, then substitute some other software with the same "Vista" label on it and claim that they are equivalent because they are labeled the same.
Then, they use this equivalence to substantiate a claim that hardware that doesn't support the features that "Vista" was advertised to possess is nevertheless still "fit for purpose".
"Did they pay more for a Vista capable computer than they would have paid for a normal computer" is a red herring. "Would they have bought a computer at all if they had known it wasn't going to support the features that Vista was advertised to have?" is the real question.
Every person who bought one of those machines was lied to about what they could do with it, and was unwise to purchase that hardware at all, because it was poorly made junk. Therefore, they are all the same. They all got the old switcheroo, and bean counting is irrelevant.
Which is why I feel the evidence indicates that the case was presented in this way because those presenting the case were bought off. To create a precedent that favors the guilty before those wronged by the guilty present a sane and reasonable argument. This whole thing is corrupt through and through.
find a bicycle that is actually just the basic version of a car, then perhaps your argument might mean something. There is a version of Vista those machines would run with, and it is actually Vista...not DOS, not Win3.1, but Vista.
Yeah, more bullshit and liars games... I can take a piece of dog shit, stick it in a box and put a Vista sticker on it. If I advertise that I'm selling Vista for $10 and send you this box, was I honest, or was I not?
Similarly, Microsoft made a lot of grand claims about what Vista can do, in an effort to get people to upgrade. Now, it's one thing to say, "You need to pay for the top-of-the-line version if you wish to have access to all the functionality, but the only barrier holding you back from having access is your choice to pay for the extra features."
It's another thing to say "That Vista-Capable machine you bought is not capable of using the features that we advertised, sorry, we can sell you the upgraded software, but you won't be able to use it."
This is where the fine line between gouging and fraud lies. And they are very clearly on the fraud side of the line.
This whole thing stinks of bought and paid for...
The arguments are flawed. It doesn't matter if they paid more or not. The machines were advertised as being fit for a specific purpose, and they are not fit for that purpose. If I order a $200 car, and someone sends me a $200 bicycle, the fact that it was a fair price for a bicycle is rather irrelevant.
This whole thing stinks of bought and paid for...
What the fuck does all this crap about forks and threads have to do with Microsoft and their efforts to secure your computer against you?
There's a bunch of bullshit there about "Multiple Distrusting Principles". What that means is a bunch of corporate organizations who don't trust you, and don't want you to remain in control of your machine.
This isn't about some website engaging in cross site scripting attacks and screwing with users. This isn't about user security at all.
What this is about is allowing select, approved types of mashups to occur while still keeping everything totally locked down. It's about making not having control over your own machine somewhat palatable so maybe you'll be dumb enough to buy into this virtual prison system.
This is for those assholes who abuse Flash to keep you from downloading media to your hard drive for later viewing, so to speak. They see all this Web 2.0 stuff going on, and they want to get in on the action, but they don't want to remove the locks to get there. They want them made stronger.
Goddamn I'd love to burn those motherfuckers at the stake.
Ok, go back to your inane wank about forks and processes... I'm done ranting here.
Trouble is, the internet doesn't have to be a good replacement in order to end up replacing newspapers. If the Times could only afford to embed reporters in dusty warzones because of classified ad revenue, and their classifieds department has been gutted, well, I guess there won't be any more reporters out there, will there?
That is my concern. I hope that the virtues of newspapers will carry through; but it is far from assured. Things like foreign and political reporting, and stuff that pisses off possible advertisers, are socially vital; but they are cost centers in the strictly financial sense. They could, fairly easily, end up just being eliminated, without replacement.
The time when privately run, for profit news actually served a socially noble purpose, if they ever did exist, are long gone.
If you want such things to exist, they need to be socialized, and they need to be transparent, and accountable, and dedicated exclusively to a higher social purpose. Even then it's hard to prevent them being corrupted.
Media companies are propaganda machines. They're staffed by the people who brought you the cold war. They're nothing but groups of evil manipulators, and it's good that they're going to die.
At least you didn't link to gay porn or child porn or beastiality or golden showers or shit-eaters or goatse.cx or any crude stuff like that...
You are opting in to the update, not the Firefox extension. That's installed silently as part of the update. The only reason it was detected was that Firefox told him that it had been installed, after the fact. If it were, as you claim, opt-in, he would have been asked if he wanted it before it was installed. See the difference?
I can't test this myself, don't have a Windows machine here, but every time I've installed Java on Windows in the past, it scanned my machine and asked me if I wanted to install support into each of my browsers, which generally consisted of Firefox and IE. And after I said yes, it did some mucking about in the internals of my browsers to make them interact properly with JRE.
If you already did this, in the past, then you already gave them consent to integrate into your browser. So, the difference is, now you can see the evidence in your Add-On's list, where before you couldn't.
So, this doesn't resemble MS's stunt at all. Nice move posting a big fat broken link right at the top of the story, by the way. Smooth...
Then, once I've actually built the next eBay or whatever, it might be worth considering building my own datacenter. But it's just not cost-effective for a small app -- I don't even need an entire machine, and I certainly don't want to be buying several machines (and several network connections, for redundancy), UPS, cooling, etc, when I'm still effectively a Mom&Pop operation.
I mean, I get it -- it would be cool to have all that stuff. But it would be a lot of work to maintain, and it'd be a waste of money, considering the alternatives.
If you say so... not hard to put together a pair of load balancers, a few servers running apache2 and memcache and a few database servers with replication for under 5 grand if you don't mind using refurbished computers to get started... that's an awful lot of grunt and enough redundancy to more than make up for the cheap consumer grade hardware.
The unfortunate reality is that, depending on what happens, this could conceivably be construed as either (a) evidence of bad faith (which courts really don't like) or (b) an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs or plaintiff witnesses, which would be a MAJOR problem for the defense (who would then be under the gun to prove total noninvolvement).
No, it's only intimidation if you don't follow through. If you follow through, it's assault. Can't say what effect it's going to have on those teenagers, don't really think they're going to give too much of a shit, but it could prove a major problem for the plaintiffs being assaulted by the angry public.
Doesn't it seem like it's time for these business people, judges, lawyers, etc to retire, permanently, and hand over the reins of power? Seems that way to me...
That is something you're going to have to live with, if your software is going to be a web application, unless you really want to start building your own datacenter.
I'm confused... how could you be in the business of building web applications and not have a million and one ideas of cool things you could do with your own datacenter? Isn't building that one golden application that pays for your datacenter so you can unleash your other mad-scientist type plans on the world the holy grail, so to speak?
Cease fire means stop for now because good may come of it, but if it doesn't, the victor is usually the one who strikes first and hard at the end of the cease fire while the enemy is adjusting their shit.
Or that's my understanding of it, anyways...
But really, this doesn't really make me hate Hulu. They've got a solid business model - Provide content to US viewers (or people using a US-based proxy) and provide ad-supported content based on the restrictions imposed by the content providers. What's so wrong about that?
It's disingenuous. They should exercise some integrity and print their clients propaganda on pieces of paper to be dropped from military aircraft instead of trying to pass it off as entertainment.
InnoDB does support foreign key constraints. (And I'll mention that it has ACID transactions as well, since you may not know that either.)
Well, actually, InnoDB was made by another group and is currently "owned" by Oracle if I'm not mistaken. Regardless, I remember when they didn't have these things, and they constantly put forth that they were some backwards way of doing things that was unjustified and that if you were doing things right, you didn't need them. This isn't about features. It's about trust.
It is not so much reality that changes, but our limited understanding of it as a people.
On what do you base this statement?
The absence of preconceptions is identical to the consciousness of ignorance.
The presence of preconceptions is identical to the assumption of knowledge.
Therefore, the fool knows that he is a fool, but the wise can never really know if he is knowledgeable or insane.
That is why the standard representation of a Fool is a man about to walk off a cliff.
Sounds like the sort of thing that would only be useful if you wanted to release your source. If you use this tool at all, you just did, right?
I know I shouldn't reply to a sig, but... you've got it all wrong.
The Fool, conscious of his own ignorance, looks at the world and attempts to adapt himself. When he does so effectively, he becomes the Wise and stops looking at the world. Then when the world changes, the Wise must become Fools again before they can begin to become Wise again. Until they succeed, they're the Insane.
There is no such thing as progress, there is only the changing external world and our endless struggle to effectively mirror it within our internal world.
So you want people to be able to call the shelter, whom also blocks their number? Show up with a nice "XXX Women's Shelter" On call display so that the women can be hunted down?
How else are we supposed to cut their heads off with our swords?
Capital Punishment is a deterrent, nothing more.
So, by that logic, if I pick a few specks of dirt out of my bowl of rice, I'm not actually removing the dirt, I'm just creating a deterrent to future specks of dirt.
You are an idiot.
However, a judge is still a human with basic rights. The punishment has to fit the crime actually committed (not the worst-case scenario that we can somehow call similar), and while this crime was severe, it does not warrant a death sentence.
Are you Jewish or something? Eye for an eye?
That's bullshit. There are certain standards that a person must meet to be a person, and not a dangerous wild animal in our midst. If they don't meet them, they should be shot down like a dog and removed from society. If their violation is such that it doesn't render then dangerous to the group, then they should be given no punishment at all, but rather assisted to meet the standards.
If a bear mauls someones face, we don't cut the bear's muzzle off... we kill the bear and we bury it. Same thing.
Why is it that it's illegal to gamble with your electoral vote, and it's illegal to give weapons to strangers, but it's ok to piss your money away in a casino?
Seriously, what makes money different from a vote or a gun? You're obligated to take responsibility for those things because it's reckless endangerment of your fellow man if you don't... what makes people think money is different?
Seems to me that going to a casino in the first place is just plain negligent...
The point is not to undo anything. Nothing can be undone. The point is to permanently remove malignant antisocial entities from the society with assurances that they will not resurface.
To allow a system which is corrupt to deal with its own corruption fixes nothing. The people must deal with the system with their own hands, they must be connected to the events. They must grow up and take responsibility for their society, or they will continue to be trampled by it.
They corrupted the judgment system and left psychological scars on 5000 people, and they did it for profit.
They should be executed. If they are not executed by the system, then they should be executed by the people, lynch mob style.