nasty opinion + no justification listed + 'never again should anyone have the right to see it' = flamebait
heaven forbid anyone make an argument that is intelligent and respectful of other opinions.
ps- go kill yourself dipshit, the 'eat your balls' comment was uncalled for.
so writers who must use keyboards/typewriters/pens/cuneiform cannot make anything creative?
artists who use tools rather than their hands to sculpt are hacks? painters, with brushes, oils, and canvases are inept?
ahh.. I see "Only when the tools of creation become invisible" we need INVISIBLE pens....
What you describe is acceptable, but it isn't what the article refers to. the article states that the software "Builds a database of subscriber demographics and buying behaviors to help evolve and refine marketing efforts" this is spyware for the sole purpose of marketing, it does nothing to aid in tech support.
You fucking retard. voting 'with your dollars' is not part of democracy. it is not the responsibility of the citizen to monitor every dealing of every major corporation, and then to enact 1 person embargos which most likely will accomplish nothing and will solely either a.) deprive the citizen of a product or service due to the virtual monopolies that exist (don't agree with microsoft? then you can't use half the computer software available. don't agree with the RIAA? then you can't listen to any more music. don't agree with x company? then you either can't eat or drink, or when you do you have to pay more.) capitalism != democracy. we need government regulation, not to blame the individual while praising the company for being so efficient at making money (which means by it's nature trying to make a monopoly, trying to pay employees less and less (and downsizing/automating as much as possible), and trying to manufacture as many needs as possible (benificial to the the public or not)).
4 questions:
1.)do they plan to phase out the ability to disable palladium?
2.)also- if one chooses (if indeed it is possible) to not enable palladium, will they be unable to use multimedia content or install OS upgrades?
3.)- why does microsoft feel the need to (currently) spy on what media you view/listen to, and why is there no feature (short of a firewall) to maintain privacy in viewing? (if you purchased the OS you should have the ability to listen to your own music and watch your own videos without being a constant source of marketing information for MS without your approval)
4.) why do they feel the need to change TOS agreements in ways that change the fundamental rights of a purchaser with security patches (and isn't it either illegal or greatly unethical to, a year after the product has been purchased and is no longer returnable, change the terms to something that the end user may no longer agree to)
the point is that innocence has never been an assurance that someone will not abuse power against you. many post sept-11 muslims in the US were perfectly innocent (95% of those arrested as a matter of fact) and yet thousands were rounded up and held for 6-9 months or more on end. the japanese-americans during WWII were innocent, but were rounded up into camps. the jews in germany were innocent. and in our current times (within the last year) the government has interrogated a large number of citizens for 'unamerican activities'. the gov has also recieved thousands of complaints about 'suspicious' (dark-skinned) people who the government went on to detain, arrest, or degrade. So yes, there IS a precedent for those who have 'nothing to hide' needing protection from government power.
please disregard the prior post, I hit the enter key by mistake in mid sentence.
I was saying, does anyone know whether or not the reason 2600 no longer posts links to 'hacked sites' is a result of scrutiny from their lawsuit?
I apologize for being off-topic somewhat, but 2600 doesn't come up on/. too often...
although they claim you can disable it, how many web services, major software releases, and multimedia services do you think the media industries will allow to run on those computers not running palladium. While you will have the option to turn it off, by doing so you will no doubt have to give up the ability to use software/music/video/etc on your computer.
the above is speculation, but given other similar 'options', I would say there is a good chance of it ocurring.
on a similar, yet unrelated note, MS's windows media player has the 'option' to turn off digital rights management, but it still contacts their website every time you run a video, is there any way to disable this (aside from using a firewall, which I usually do)
(I haven't read the entire thing yet)
how much data would they have maintain then, in order to compute what each of these fobs looks like from infinite angles, rather than to merely store images of the correct appearances?
they're just going to hurt their own business, after all a CD will not sound as good to reviewers when played on a tinny headset as it would in a full stereo system with subwoofers. And if it's the sort of music that sounds better very loud, the reviewer will have to hurt their ears a lot more if he wants to give it a fair shake.
Keanu never shows any emotional range, he always falls back on the same facial expressions (the dumb ted theodore logan smile from Bill and Ted) and the open mouthed half smile "whoa" from the replacements, the matrix, and sweet november. he's never ever shown any convincing emotion or thought. his body type does not fit the role and his accent/manner of speech does not fit the character of superman (who was a farmboy, not a surfer).
Sean connery, while he does speak in a scottish accent, has a wide range of emotions and mannerisms, and understands the ideas of drama much better.
your question is like saying "both Brittney Spears and Beethoven made music, so why is it you can argue she isn't on his level?"
you're right, clooney and kilmer played batman like he really was a rich playboy (and enjoyed it) whereas keaton was a batman who never rested and whose moments of pleasure were always haunted with anger and depression.
Michael Keaton MADE THE ROLE as batman. he was brooding and angry, not a prissy happy go lucky supermodel type with latex nipples on his costume, and not a softhearted wimp like clooney.
as for the superman thing, it's horrible news. I don't know why they're going for scrawny actors, but a few years ago they were talking about a superman film starring nick cage. while cage doesn't seem to physically fit the role, he's a very good actor and I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. with keanu at the helm I think even watching a trailer for the film will be painful.
actually, since UT2003 is a multiplayer only game, it is vitally important from a business viewpoint for them to have as many servers out there as possible for people to play on. And, as much as you may love OS-X, there will be far more dedicated servers running linux.
the answer is obvious, because there is MONEY to be made by eliminating file-sharing, but they make no additional money by having listeners off drugs. they're a company, a ruthless company, but a company none the less, and companies are in the business of making money.
Slashdot Mirror
slashdot posts news for nerds / stuff that matters. this falls into the former category: news for nerds
nasty opinion + no justification listed + 'never again should anyone have the right to see it' = flamebait heaven forbid anyone make an argument that is intelligent and respectful of other opinions. ps- go kill yourself dipshit, the 'eat your balls' comment was uncalled for.
nomadic, I'm see someone else that's still sane.
so writers who must use keyboards/typewriters/pens/cuneiform cannot make anything creative? artists who use tools rather than their hands to sculpt are hacks? painters, with brushes, oils, and canvases are inept? ahh.. I see "Only when the tools of creation become invisible" we need INVISIBLE pens....
What you describe is acceptable, but it isn't what the article refers to. the article states that the software "Builds a database of subscriber demographics and buying behaviors to help evolve and refine marketing efforts" this is spyware for the sole purpose of marketing, it does nothing to aid in tech support.
You fucking retard. voting 'with your dollars' is not part of democracy. it is not the responsibility of the citizen to monitor every dealing of every major corporation, and then to enact 1 person embargos which most likely will accomplish nothing and will solely either a.) deprive the citizen of a product or service due to the virtual monopolies that exist (don't agree with microsoft? then you can't use half the computer software available. don't agree with the RIAA? then you can't listen to any more music. don't agree with x company? then you either can't eat or drink, or when you do you have to pay more.) capitalism != democracy. we need government regulation, not to blame the individual while praising the company for being so efficient at making money (which means by it's nature trying to make a monopoly, trying to pay employees less and less (and downsizing/automating as much as possible), and trying to manufacture as many needs as possible (benificial to the the public or not)).
and without mother nature to clean up it means that thousands of people are going to have to remove every single damn sticker that microsoft litters.
4 questions: 1.)do they plan to phase out the ability to disable palladium? 2.)also- if one chooses (if indeed it is possible) to not enable palladium, will they be unable to use multimedia content or install OS upgrades? 3.)- why does microsoft feel the need to (currently) spy on what media you view/listen to, and why is there no feature (short of a firewall) to maintain privacy in viewing? (if you purchased the OS you should have the ability to listen to your own music and watch your own videos without being a constant source of marketing information for MS without your approval) 4.) why do they feel the need to change TOS agreements in ways that change the fundamental rights of a purchaser with security patches (and isn't it either illegal or greatly unethical to, a year after the product has been purchased and is no longer returnable, change the terms to something that the end user may no longer agree to)
the point is that innocence has never been an assurance that someone will not abuse power against you. many post sept-11 muslims in the US were perfectly innocent (95% of those arrested as a matter of fact) and yet thousands were rounded up and held for 6-9 months or more on end. the japanese-americans during WWII were innocent, but were rounded up into camps. the jews in germany were innocent. and in our current times (within the last year) the government has interrogated a large number of citizens for 'unamerican activities'. the gov has also recieved thousands of complaints about 'suspicious' (dark-skinned) people who the government went on to detain, arrest, or degrade. So yes, there IS a precedent for those who have 'nothing to hide' needing protection from government power.
please disregard the prior post, I hit the enter key by mistake in mid sentence. I was saying, does anyone know whether or not the reason 2600 no longer posts links to 'hacked sites' is a result of scrutiny from their lawsuit? I apologize for being off-topic somewhat, but 2600 doesn't come up on /. too often...
does anyone know
although they claim you can disable it, how many web services, major software releases, and multimedia services do you think the media industries will allow to run on those computers not running palladium. While you will have the option to turn it off, by doing so you will no doubt have to give up the ability to use software/music/video/etc on your computer.
the above is speculation, but given other similar 'options', I would say there is a good chance of it ocurring.
on a similar, yet unrelated note, MS's windows media player has the 'option' to turn off digital rights management, but it still contacts their website every time you run a video, is there any way to disable this (aside from using a firewall, which I usually do)
(I haven't read the entire thing yet) how much data would they have maintain then, in order to compute what each of these fobs looks like from infinite angles, rather than to merely store images of the correct appearances?
he didn't say it was an improved level, just 'new'...
they're just going to hurt their own business, after all a CD will not sound as good to reviewers when played on a tinny headset as it would in a full stereo system with subwoofers. And if it's the sort of music that sounds better very loud, the reviewer will have to hurt their ears a lot more if he wants to give it a fair shake.
Keanu never shows any emotional range, he always falls back on the same facial expressions (the dumb ted theodore logan smile from Bill and Ted) and the open mouthed half smile "whoa" from the replacements, the matrix, and sweet november. he's never ever shown any convincing emotion or thought. his body type does not fit the role and his accent/manner of speech does not fit the character of superman (who was a farmboy, not a surfer). Sean connery, while he does speak in a scottish accent, has a wide range of emotions and mannerisms, and understands the ideas of drama much better. your question is like saying "both Brittney Spears and Beethoven made music, so why is it you can argue she isn't on his level?"
you're right, clooney and kilmer played batman like he really was a rich playboy (and enjoyed it) whereas keaton was a batman who never rested and whose moments of pleasure were always haunted with anger and depression.
Michael Keaton MADE THE ROLE as batman. he was brooding and angry, not a prissy happy go lucky supermodel type with latex nipples on his costume, and not a softhearted wimp like clooney. as for the superman thing, it's horrible news. I don't know why they're going for scrawny actors, but a few years ago they were talking about a superman film starring nick cage. while cage doesn't seem to physically fit the role, he's a very good actor and I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. with keanu at the helm I think even watching a trailer for the film will be painful.
actually, since UT2003 is a multiplayer only game, it is vitally important from a business viewpoint for them to have as many servers out there as possible for people to play on. And, as much as you may love OS-X, there will be far more dedicated servers running linux.
the answer is obvious, because there is MONEY to be made by eliminating file-sharing, but they make no additional money by having listeners off drugs. they're a company, a ruthless company, but a company none the less, and companies are in the business of making money.