Couldn't you use a crypto one-way hash to hash the addresses of all sites you wish to block. When surfing then you'd compare the domain hash to the list of hashes to "go private" for. Sure this isn't completely secure but a whole heap better? That's how passwd works isn't it?
Cheeky: What's the password Dildo: Yeah, that's what I said, what's the password Bobo: Why are you asking me, I'm asking you... Cheeky: You're asking who? Dildo: Hu doesn't know...
Copyright is there to encourage creative works and ensure just reward for those works before they enter the public domain. If just reward has been gained by the creators (author, editor, typesetter, publisher, etc.) then perhaps the work should just head straight to the public domain?
Does she think her "brand" is so weak, the competing lexicon is going to damage hers?
Possibly not. She may or may not be a malevolent bitch. However her shareholders want "their" money and if someone likes the work but is getting in the way they couldn't care less about eliminating them as competition. This is about capitalism not literature.
Not only that, but Ms. Rowling explicitly said that she had no objection if the Lexicon continues to be published for free on the web.
It's really, really hard for me to get worked up over this.
Define "for free". If she means that the authors can't recoup any financial loss or benefit then yes I bet she'd love that - basically it is then a huge advert for her work that the editor has spent many many hours creating and isn't allowed to even cover his hosting costs from. She should, as she apparently admits to having made use of the tome, buy the work from the editor at a decent hourly rate and release it herself (with a percentage of gross to the editor).
That would be a true reflection of her supporting those struggling authors of which she once was a comrade.
But, even if she wanted to I'm pretty sure her shareholders couldn't care less as long as they get their money.
Re:Shuts down for the winter?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Try cern.ch, but my guess is that they need the energy for Switzerlands heating/lighting needs in Winter + the skiing means none of the physicists can be bothered working.
Oh and they may want to do some prep, dry runs and maintenance, but mostly skiing.
I'm feel sorry now that people are seeing the low quality online videos on the iPlayer website and thinking that they're using iPlayer!
Well perhaps you could tell me when either the BBC will give me a rebate large enough to pay for a MS Windows license, or when they'll keep their word and release the Linux version of the iPlayer download service. Then you'll be able to stop being sorry for me.
As it happens the "high quality" stream when it's going well is as good as a many regular TV signals from what I can tell.
I suspect that most people make do with the streaming version - at least I've not had any calls from friends about installing it. YMMV.
I'm not familiar with the jurisprudence here-- if I were, I wouldn't be asking-- but it was the reasoning behind this statement I really wanted. How not?
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10
...No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress....
Or does that only apply to international trade?
I don't know how it applies but it's a lame bit of legislation. It says that the states can independently raise a tax to pay for the administration of imports and exports (presumably interstate) which seems fair. [Other duties/taxes presumably have to be congress approved]. Then it says that the money raised has to go to the treasury and that the independently made tax law is then subject to being revised by congress? So the state can't actually use the tax money for the purpose it was raised?? Weird. Why even bother allowing the individual states to independently raise this tax?
I'm guessing somewhere along the way it makes some congressmen a huge pile of money.
I really don't think that Google wants to enter the browser wars. They will make no money from Chrome; it is just a means to an end.
Google pay Mozilla Foundation some astronomical sum so that FF (etc.) will drive traffic to Google, ditto Opera. As Google is a trusted source in applications I see two main financial incentives:
1) They get a percentage of the browser market and no longer have to pay as much to FF and Op to still get as much of the search traffic as at present. 2) They get to win some of the FF crowd (not the hardened coders) and so get to present more ads (because there's no ad blocking) and track users better (because there's no script blocking) - more presentations means more conversions means more money for Google.
Why don't the extension developers keep ready an upgraded version of their add-ons so that with every Firefox upgrade you don't have to sit and wait for days for the add-ons to be upgraded?
I'm guessing it's partly because some of them have a life! Seriously, I can't imagine that any of the extension developers make a living from doing it? Perhaps a couple of the top ones can justify 24 hours turn around of an upgrade due to the visits it brings to their website, perhaps.
They'd need a final beta period of a week or so (probably quite a bit more) to give extension developers a chance, but then this release cycle would be broken for critical security bugs, so it's probably not really worth implementing.
What I'd like to see is the top add-ons included with the browser (still as add-ons that could be removed if wished) and those developers paid by Mozilla. That way add-ons could be kept in synch with browser development.
if it wasn't for the Windows logo at the end I wouldn't have known what product it was "selling"
It's not selling a product, yet. It's a hook you're supposed to think "moist, w-t-flip??". That then gives them space in your brain, you're slightly confused as you expect MS to tout their technology, spout off with some of the usual FUD, but no - they haven't even tried to sell you anything... yet. Now you anticipate round 2, your curious... curiosity is a killer, it's also a very good marketing tool: if you're in a room with 2 doors and one says "danger to life, do not enter" you couldn't care less what's behind the other one you just want to open the dangerous one!
IMO it's a good advert, we just have to see if the marketeers can make good of that advantage.
"Mr V.I. Agra" is going to get a lot of subpoena's.
Seriously, how many of those domains have bona fide registration details? You're going to need to track international bank transfers from the Soviet Block (Eastern Europe), Nigeria, etc..
It's not charming at all, it's doubly strange and bottom-ish. It's like a cranky old professor, a weird ass.
Google will not make an adblock plus ...
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Except that it's open source and some hacker will provide either a binary patch or add-on or re-release that has an adblock feature (that probably links in to the lists used in FF at the moment).
So, no there won't be a Google endorsed adblocker.
Since when did being able to get the source if you receive a copy of the binary mean that the company couldn't put restrictions on use? You're at least the second to ask this, and yes, you're missing something.
[...] This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.
Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome
Which goes to show how ludicrous this is. Such an agreement is between 2 parties. If they can just alter the agreement unilaterally then so can you. Copy it to your computer, alter all the clauses to read this "software is public domain and released with no restrictions"... Bobs your uncle.
> The problem is that they put them in legalese, which might as well be japanese for most > people.
And yet 99.999% click "Agree" without even attempting to read the terms. Only fools agree to contracts which they have not read and understood.
And most are not that hard to understand anyway. "It's legalese and so I can't understand it" is usually code for "I can't be arsed to make the effort to understand it."
I used to read legal and technical docs for my work. I can read the agreement, but I choose to just click "agree". The terms aren't valid. If I bothered to not use all the services whose agreement's I disagree with then I'd never use any major businesses services. AFAI am concerned "Agree" means I wish to use the software and nothing else, that's my terms.
IE is still beta, think they're at Beta8 now, they have huge market share.
not web developers, they are IE-developers
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because web developers are often complete idiots who believe that people using non-IE browsers are edge cases who need to upgrade to 'modern standards' like IE 7, rather than broken, 'non-standards-compliant' browsers like Safari or Firefox.
If there were a way to punch web developers in the face through some kind of browser extension, I think these people would learn a lot faster.
Those people are not web developers, they are IE-developers.
Slashdot Mirror
Because nobody ever shares a login?
Couldn't you use a crypto one-way hash to hash the addresses of all sites you wish to block. When surfing then you'd compare the domain hash to the list of hashes to "go private" for. Sure this isn't completely secure but a whole heap better? That's how passwd works isn't it?
Yup, I know about John-The-Ripper, etc..
Does it work well for you?
Cheeky: What's the password ... ...
Dildo: Yeah, that's what I said, what's the password
Bobo: Why are you asking me, I'm asking you
Cheeky: You're asking who?
Dildo: Hu doesn't know
Hilarity ensues??
Why not?
Copyright is there to encourage creative works and ensure just reward for those works before they enter the public domain. If just reward has been gained by the creators (author, editor, typesetter, publisher, etc.) then perhaps the work should just head straight to the public domain?
Does she think her "brand" is so weak, the competing lexicon is going to damage hers?
Possibly not. She may or may not be a malevolent bitch. However her shareholders want "their" money and if someone likes the work but is getting in the way they couldn't care less about eliminating them as competition. This is about capitalism not literature.
Not only that, but Ms. Rowling explicitly said that she had no objection if the Lexicon continues to be published for free on the web.
It's really, really hard for me to get worked up over this.
Define "for free". If she means that the authors can't recoup any financial loss or benefit then yes I bet she'd love that - basically it is then a huge advert for her work that the editor has spent many many hours creating and isn't allowed to even cover his hosting costs from. She should, as she apparently admits to having made use of the tome, buy the work from the editor at a decent hourly rate and release it herself (with a percentage of gross to the editor).
That would be a true reflection of her supporting those struggling authors of which she once was a comrade.
But, even if she wanted to I'm pretty sure her shareholders couldn't care less as long as they get their money.
[...] Second, it's supposed to be a news site.
Are you for real ... news? Ha-ha ha ha.
Try cern.ch, but my guess is that they need the energy for Switzerlands heating /lighting needs in Winter + the skiing means none of the physicists can be bothered working.
Oh and they may want to do some prep, dry runs and maintenance, but mostly skiing.
Moderation: Informative
Quote 1: "the evidence for warm blooded dinosaurs is slim at best"
Quote 2: "I have pretty much no knowledge about dinosaurs"
Err, OK.
I'm feel sorry now that people are seeing the low quality online videos on the iPlayer website and thinking that they're using iPlayer!
Well perhaps you could tell me when either the BBC will give me a rebate large enough to pay for a MS Windows license, or when they'll keep their word and release the Linux version of the iPlayer download service. Then you'll be able to stop being sorry for me.
As it happens the "high quality" stream when it's going well is as good as a many regular TV signals from what I can tell.
I suspect that most people make do with the streaming version - at least I've not had any calls from friends about installing it. YMMV.
I'm not familiar with the jurisprudence here-- if I were, I wouldn't be asking-- but it was the reasoning behind this statement I really wanted. How not?
Or does that only apply to international trade?
I don't know how it applies but it's a lame bit of legislation. It says that the states can independently raise a tax to pay for the administration of imports and exports (presumably interstate) which seems fair. [Other duties/taxes presumably have to be congress approved]. Then it says that the money raised has to go to the treasury and that the independently made tax law is then subject to being revised by congress? So the state can't actually use the tax money for the purpose it was raised?? Weird. Why even bother allowing the individual states to independently raise this tax?
I'm guessing somewhere along the way it makes some congressmen a huge pile of money.
Samah is right, that's the point - but if you always choose news.google.com then that option will come up first in the list.
I really don't think that Google wants to enter the browser wars. They will make no money from Chrome; it is just a means to an end.
Google pay Mozilla Foundation some astronomical sum so that FF (etc.) will drive traffic to Google, ditto Opera. As Google is a trusted source in applications I see two main financial incentives:
1) They get a percentage of the browser market and no longer have to pay as much to FF and Op to still get as much of the search traffic as at present.
2) They get to win some of the FF crowd (not the hardened coders) and so get to present more ads (because there's no ad blocking) and track users better (because there's no script blocking) - more presentations means more conversions means more money for Google.
Why don't the extension developers keep ready an upgraded version of their add-ons so that with every Firefox upgrade you don't have to sit and wait for days for the add-ons to be upgraded?
I'm guessing it's partly because some of them have a life! Seriously, I can't imagine that any of the extension developers make a living from doing it? Perhaps a couple of the top ones can justify 24 hours turn around of an upgrade due to the visits it brings to their website, perhaps.
They'd need a final beta period of a week or so (probably quite a bit more) to give extension developers a chance, but then this release cycle would be broken for critical security bugs, so it's probably not really worth implementing.
What I'd like to see is the top add-ons included with the browser (still as add-ons that could be removed if wished) and those developers paid by Mozilla. That way add-ons could be kept in synch with browser development.
if it wasn't for the Windows logo at the end I wouldn't have known what product it was "selling"
It's not selling a product, yet. It's a hook you're supposed to think "moist, w-t-flip??". That then gives them space in your brain, you're slightly confused as you expect MS to tout their technology, spout off with some of the usual FUD, but no - they haven't even tried to sell you anything ... yet. Now you anticipate round 2, your curious ... curiosity is a killer, it's also a very good marketing tool: if you're in a room with 2 doors and one says "danger to life, do not enter" you couldn't care less what's behind the other one you just want to open the dangerous one!
IMO it's a good advert, we just have to see if the marketeers can make good of that advantage.
"Mr V.I. Agra" is going to get a lot of subpoena's.
Seriously, how many of those domains have bona fide registration details? You're going to need to track international bank transfers from the Soviet Block (Eastern Europe), Nigeria, etc..
It's not charming at all, it's doubly strange and bottom-ish. It's like a cranky old professor, a weird ass.
Except that it's open source and some hacker will provide either a binary patch or add-on or re-release that has an adblock feature (that probably links in to the lists used in FF at the moment).
So, no there won't be a Google endorsed adblocker.
Since when did being able to get the source if you receive a copy of the binary mean that the company couldn't put restrictions on use? You're at least the second to ask this, and yes, you're missing something.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/
[...] This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.
Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome
Which goes to show how ludicrous this is. Such an agreement is between 2 parties. If they can just alter the agreement unilaterally then so can you. Copy it to your computer, alter all the clauses to read this "software is public domain and released with no restrictions" ... Bobs your uncle.
> The problem is that they put them in legalese, which might as well be japanese for most
> people.
And yet 99.999% click "Agree" without even attempting to read the terms. Only fools agree to contracts which they have not read and understood.
And most are not that hard to understand anyway. "It's legalese and so I can't understand it" is usually code for "I can't be arsed to make the effort to understand it."
I used to read legal and technical docs for my work. I can read the agreement, but I choose to just click "agree". The terms aren't valid. If I bothered to not use all the services whose agreement's I disagree with then I'd never use any major businesses services. AFAI am concerned "Agree" means I wish to use the software and nothing else, that's my terms.
[can't resist]
IE is still beta, think they're at Beta8 now, they have huge market share.
Because web developers are often complete idiots who believe that people using non-IE browsers are edge cases who need to upgrade to 'modern standards' like IE 7, rather than broken, 'non-standards-compliant' browsers like Safari or Firefox.
If there were a way to punch web developers in the face through some kind of browser extension, I think these people would learn a lot faster.
Those people are not web developers, they are IE-developers.
.. or the parent of a teenager?