Nope...
snip, snip:
That includes the minor engaging in simulated sexual activity.
It's the sexual activity that is simulated, not the minor.
Looks like we can't!
You may not be wrong, but you should exhaust all other possibilities first. I was working in a company where we found a bug in the floating-point calculation on the intel chip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
Lots of people also found it. You can't even assume that your hardware is right:)
(Oh, btw, damn your sig! I'm singing that song now!)
That's because most games programmers implement their character as a solid object (until they ragdoll due to collision or death). The object is moved by pushing from behind rather than the "feet" pulling forward. It's not a problem with the physics so much as a problem with optimised implementation in games.
Couldn't customers circumvent the circumvention if gmail allowed + characters in the name, then when the spammers stripped it out, it would no longer get to you?
If I find the methods used to obtain those riches questionable, why should I be pleased that he no uses it in a charitable way?
Why should I HAVE to admit that his heart is in the right place, what of the businesses (and their employees) that have suffered at the hands of the monopolies. Why do we now have to admire him?
Of course, if you think he did not much (or nothing less than should be encouraged) wrong, go ahead... don't force your view on me.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"are just words on paper that can be ignored as the powers-that-be wish"
ho-hum. In Ireland, we have a more restrictive gun regime. The government is no more corrupt and bloated than in America (though also no less so). Have you (as an American), or anyone you have ever known, or indeed anyone you have read about in the last 100 years changed the way the government has been eroding your rights through the use of a gun?
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with owning guns, just that it's not a great deterrent to the government to piss you off (how happy are you now?)
"Blaming others for your lack of skepticism" - are we/can we/should we all be legal experts? No, there are people who's job it is to screw over employees through various dodges like this. I don't want to have to keep up with the latest dirty tricks as well as my own field of expertise.
There SHOULD be protection for people against companies, and responsibility for not being "skeptical" enough should not be dumped on the employee totally otherwise corporations will abuse that gleefully.
"I'm not a parent, but it seems to me that the "threats" are the same as they've always been, but the vectors are different this time around (and they'll be different again in 10 years)"
I am a parent, and I believe that the "threats" are pretty much the same as they always have been, as are the vectors. Sexual abuse is a horrendous crime, and an awful thing to suffer, but abuse (sexual,physical,mental), is in the vast majority of cases done by someone they know and trust.
If you want to be effective, don't stop them using the internet, insure that you know who is looking after your child. Parents, family members, people in positions of trust (priests, teachers, doctors etc.) are far more likely to hurt your child than a stranger.
"One could hope that since climate study on Mars should not be easily politicalized"
Not a chance - global warming is highly politicised here on Earth, and it immediately becomes politicised on Mars if someone tries to make a connection - by BOTH sides
I can see it now: Greasy Capitalist Oil Baron: "Clearly we can see that this proves that global warming is actual a solar-system wide effect that has nothing to do with hydrocarbons" Rabid Socialist Masquerading as Environmentalist: "Destroy the corporations before they destroy our beautiful planet!!!"
Meanwhile rational, unbiased scientific studies are difficult to come by - and do not get the publicity that studies that (randomly or otherwise) agree with one of the political camps outlined in exaggerated form above. It's quite annoying really.
ummmm... at some point someone has to produce content to gain credibility. You say that FUD has become slick? Just because someone produces a slick info shot doesn't mean you shouldn't STILL be checking the facts.
I think we're probably on the same side here, but you don't need anything to "pierce the veil" except verifiable references.
Which this guy has. You can go to the bugzilla database that he talks about and discover for yourself if most of the bugs submitted are indeed bugs that show the tests are broken
It could have been written by Bill Gates or my mom.
Why does the author have to be so important if the facts are laid out and verifiable. You don't have to agree with his analysis nor his conclusions, but the facts should stand or fall regardless of the author
With a lot of artists coming out and making bold statements about politics etc. why would they shoot themselves in the foot and give Bono et al. a cause to bring a massively-publicised effort against their practices?
Not a chance. They'll sue the consumer and say the consumers are hurting the artists. That way the artists who want to complain come off as patronising the "little guy" when telling consumers to be more aware while making lucrative deals and earning money from consumers mistakes (never mind that they may not be given a choice, or a good deal). The record companies want tension between the artists and the consumer, NOT to be fighting a two-fronted war. If there is a lawsuit, it will be against CDEX or people using it illegally.
Everyone is talking about other costs - and they're right. This metric is next-to-useless, and extremely difficult to analyse.
However, even without the extra costs - it's a free market. This means that the company can charge what they like. If they are not a monopoly (and intel may have tried their best - but at least there's some competition now) - then they charge what people will pay, if it's easy to enter the market (and I know it's not), then someone will and outdo them.
That's the beauty of a monopoly-protected free market.
"but it's undeniable that they have created a host of useful drugs since the Bayh-Dole Act passed."
Nonsense! Nothing stated without proof is undeniable. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite of that statement was made in the article - they state that these "useful" (new, better - esp. for cancer, not just rehashes) drugs are coming out at a SLOW rate, not in "hosts" . (honestly now, did you actually read it?).
Where are you getting these figures from? You're going to have to do better than that. How about the NME's or high-priority drugs (If you don't know the term RTFA)? Granted, the article states that 2004 was a bonanza year (without stating how much so) - but the previous years?
Wait - I can't think of a reason not to support a "save as Open-Office format".
Surely, having create a document, you can save it out as an Open-Office document? Why are they talking about backwards compatibility - this is like save as text.
Just like save as text it does not support embedded video and Multimedia, and just like text, it's available to be read by anybody who has access to the standards.
Wow - modded to 5 comments alternate between "bad lexmark!!!" and "bad slashdot!!!"
This is actually about their agreement entered into with the consumer. The article DOES NOT STATE THE AGREEMENT IS A BAD ONE. The article merely argues that this kind of agreement should not be given a legally-binding status. It is hard to disagree with them there. While Lexmark may not be doing anything evil here (and I believe they are not), the legal standing gained for this kind of agreement could be used to do bad things.
If Lexmark decided to up the price of the non-"prebated" (?) cartridge, that would be legal. If the agreement stated that the cartridge had to be thrown out - I can't see that being illegal either. Just because this agreement is not necessarily bad, doesn't mean it can't be altered in legal ways to become bad. Think about that.
"artists were given fourteen years of protection". That meant that you had to get your work out there and fast - which the publishers were only willing to do for the most succesful artists. You were at the mercy of your publishers. Nowadays, the artist gets protection for 100 years, but in reality only the most succesful artists get deals that mean they benefit from that. The publisher is the one with the protection and they make LOTS of money from the succesful author.
In one way the whole situation is roughly the same nowadays (it's extremely difficult to make a living producing art), but with new technology the publisher is able to lock not only the author in with a contract, but the consumer as well.
This sounds like a tirade agains publishers, but it is a fundamental problem with the free market - profit sometimes seeks to protect itself not by seducing the consumer, but by trapping them. Of course, one of the beauties of the free market (an actually free market (rare) - just like democracy) is that the situation cannot simply get worse, eventually corrective tendencies appear (lowering CD sales can only be blamed on piracy for so long). If businesses start getting too much legal aid in the form of extended copyrights etc. the corrective tendencies are stymied.
Americans and America are generally generous people.
I'm not so sure about that. Americans are generally misled about how generous America and Americans are.
Gross Aid suggests that America is 2nd in the ranks of charitable countries (though this is 1997, the spend on war in Iraq has put strains on spend in many areas).
There may be military applications for this - however, this is not magic - you cannot stick a photo-resistor array (or camera) under a door and see behind obstacles.
This is simply a more efficient way of gathering information about a scene. The light source used fot the paper is structured, so unless the people in the room are using some pretty specialist lighting equipment you'll see nothing more than a camera would.
I know it's kinda nice to see people doing things that involve getting fresh air and having good clean fun while getting some beer and delicious german sausage, but WOW!
It actually looks like they've gotten the worst of both worlds - nac mac feegle didn't play a part in L&L, and neither was there a lot of fighting with men beating each other up and jumping out of windows - only magrat really got the ass-kickin on. So, it looks like a hollywood style mangling of the plot along with fan-style lameness......
IF (and it IS an if), google do start restricting and charging - it would be a pity.
This information was collected for free, and would be disseminated at a cost. While this has been done before (volunteer organisations are not new) - it would probably lead people away from making the effort in the next thing that comes along and is "by the people for the people"
Slashdot Mirror
Nope... snip, snip: That includes the minor engaging in simulated sexual activity. It's the sexual activity that is simulated, not the minor. Looks like we can't!
You may not be wrong, but you should exhaust all other possibilities first. I was working in a company where we found a bug in the floating-point calculation on the intel chip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
:)
Lots of people also found it. You can't even assume that your hardware is right
(Oh, btw, damn your sig! I'm singing that song now!)
They are separate projects, with TOL being less well funded basically, and smaller in scope. I believe that TOL have shared their data with EOL.
That's because most games programmers implement their character as a solid object (until they ragdoll due to collision or death). The object is moved by pushing from behind rather than the "feet" pulling forward. It's not a problem with the physics so much as a problem with optimised implementation in games.
Couldn't customers circumvent the circumvention if gmail allowed + characters in the name, then when the spammers stripped it out, it would no longer get to you?
do we?
If I find the methods used to obtain those riches questionable, why should I be pleased that he no uses it in a charitable way?
Why should I HAVE to admit that his heart is in the right place, what of the businesses (and their employees) that have suffered at the hands of the monopolies. Why do we now have to admire him?
Of course, if you think he did not much (or nothing less than should be encouraged) wrong, go ahead... don't force your view on me.
"are just words on paper that can be ignored as the powers-that-be wish"
ho-hum. In Ireland, we have a more restrictive gun regime. The government is no more corrupt and bloated than in America (though also no less so). Have you (as an American), or anyone you have ever known, or indeed anyone you have read about in the last 100 years changed the way the government has been eroding your rights through the use of a gun?
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with owning guns, just that it's not a great deterrent to the government to piss you off (how happy are you now?)
I find this kind of opinion depressing.
"Blaming others for your lack of skepticism" - are we/can we/should we all be legal experts? No, there are people who's job it is to screw over employees through various dodges like this. I don't want to have to keep up with the latest dirty tricks as well as my own field of expertise.
There SHOULD be protection for people against companies, and responsibility for not being "skeptical" enough should not be dumped on the employee totally otherwise corporations will abuse that gleefully.
"I'm not a parent, but it seems to me that the "threats" are the same as they've always been, but the vectors are different this time around (and they'll be different again in 10 years)"
I am a parent, and I believe that the "threats" are pretty much the same as they always have been, as are the vectors. Sexual abuse is a horrendous crime, and an awful thing to suffer, but abuse (sexual,physical,mental), is in the vast majority of cases done by someone they know and trust.
If you want to be effective, don't stop them using the internet, insure that you know who is looking after your child. Parents, family members, people in positions of trust (priests, teachers, doctors etc.) are far more likely to hurt your child than a stranger.
"One could hope that since climate study on Mars should not be easily politicalized"
Not a chance - global warming is highly politicised here on Earth, and it immediately becomes politicised on Mars if someone tries to make a connection - by BOTH sides
I can see it now:
Greasy Capitalist Oil Baron: "Clearly we can see that this proves that global warming is actual a solar-system wide effect that has nothing to do with hydrocarbons"
Rabid Socialist Masquerading as Environmentalist: "Destroy the corporations before they destroy our beautiful planet!!!"
Meanwhile rational, unbiased scientific studies are difficult to come by - and do not get the publicity that studies that (randomly or otherwise) agree with one of the political camps outlined in exaggerated form above. It's quite annoying really.
between beowulf clusters and robot overlords, how is a troll to control him(her)self?
it's just hopeless idealism.
ummmm... at some point someone has to produce content to gain credibility. You say that FUD has become slick? Just because someone produces a slick info shot doesn't mean you shouldn't STILL be checking the facts.
I think we're probably on the same side here, but you don't need anything to "pierce the veil" except verifiable references.
Which this guy has. You can go to the bugzilla database that he talks about and discover for yourself if most of the bugs submitted are indeed bugs that show the tests are broken
RTFA
It could have been written by Bill Gates or my mom.
Why does the author have to be so important if the facts are laid out and verifiable. You don't have to agree with his analysis nor his conclusions, but the facts should stand or fall regardless of the author
Why would they sue the artist?
With a lot of artists coming out and making bold statements about politics etc. why would they shoot themselves in the foot and give Bono et al. a cause to bring a massively-publicised effort against their practices?
Not a chance. They'll sue the consumer and say the consumers are hurting the artists. That way the artists who want to complain come off as patronising the "little guy" when telling consumers to be more aware while making lucrative deals and earning money from consumers mistakes (never mind that they may not be given a choice, or a good deal). The record companies want tension between the artists and the consumer, NOT to be fighting a two-fronted war. If there is a lawsuit, it will be against CDEX or people using it illegally.
Everyone is talking about other costs - and they're right. This metric is next-to-useless, and extremely difficult to analyse.
However, even without the extra costs - it's a free market. This means that the company can charge what they like. If they are not a monopoly (and intel may have tried their best - but at least there's some competition now) - then they charge what people will pay, if it's easy to enter the market (and I know it's not), then someone will and outdo them.
That's the beauty of a monopoly-protected free market.
"but it's undeniable that they have created a host of useful drugs since the Bayh-Dole Act passed."
Nonsense! Nothing stated without proof is undeniable. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite of that statement was made in the article - they state that these "useful" (new, better - esp. for cancer, not just rehashes) drugs are coming out at a SLOW rate, not in "hosts" . (honestly now, did you actually read it?).
Where are you getting these figures from? You're going to have to do better than that. How about the NME's or high-priority drugs (If you don't know the term RTFA)? Granted, the article states that 2004 was a bonanza year (without stating how much so) - but the previous years?
Let's get some figures from you.
Wait - I can't think of a reason not to support a "save as Open-Office format".
Surely, having create a document, you can save it out as an Open-Office document? Why are they talking about backwards compatibility - this is like save as text.
Just like save as text it does not support embedded video and Multimedia, and just like text, it's available to be read by anybody who has access to the standards.
Wow - modded to 5 comments alternate between "bad lexmark!!!" and "bad slashdot!!!"
This is actually about their agreement entered into with the consumer. The article DOES NOT STATE THE AGREEMENT IS A BAD ONE. The article merely argues that this kind of agreement should not be given a legally-binding status. It is hard to disagree with them there. While Lexmark may not be doing anything evil here (and I believe they are not), the legal standing gained for this kind of agreement could be used to do bad things.
If Lexmark decided to up the price of the non-"prebated" (?) cartridge, that would be legal. If the agreement stated that the cartridge had to be thrown out - I can't see that being illegal either. Just because this agreement is not necessarily bad, doesn't mean it can't be altered in legal ways to become bad. Think about that.
I like that...
"artists were given fourteen years of protection". That meant that you had to get your work out there and fast - which the publishers were only willing to do for the most succesful artists. You were at the mercy of your publishers. Nowadays, the artist gets protection for 100 years, but in reality only the most succesful artists get deals that mean they benefit from that. The publisher is the one with the protection and they make LOTS of money from the succesful author.
In one way the whole situation is roughly the same nowadays (it's extremely difficult to make a living producing art), but with new technology the publisher is able to lock not only the author in with a contract, but the consumer as well.
This sounds like a tirade agains publishers, but it is a fundamental problem with the free market - profit sometimes seeks to protect itself not by seducing the consumer, but by trapping them. Of course, one of the beauties of the free market (an actually free market (rare) - just like democracy) is that the situation cannot simply get worse, eventually corrective tendencies appear (lowering CD sales can only be blamed on piracy for so long). If businesses start getting too much legal aid in the form of extended copyrights etc. the corrective tendencies are stymied.
bitter
Charitable Nations
The poster noted that Americans AND America are generous, however this is a widely held belief by Americans which does not fully hold up.
Not trying to offend people, but it can get a bit... trying to be told how generous America is (being Irish, we do quite well).
Americans and America are generally generous people.
I'm not so sure about that. Americans are generally misled about how generous America and Americans are.
Gross Aid suggests that America is 2nd in the ranks of charitable countries (though this is 1997, the spend on war in Iraq has put strains on spend in many areas).
Charitable Nations shows how generous america is "per person"
Noted.
There may be military applications for this - however, this is not magic - you cannot stick a photo-resistor array (or camera) under a door and see behind obstacles.
This is simply a more efficient way of gathering information about a scene. The light source used fot the paper is structured, so unless the people in the room are using some pretty specialist lighting equipment you'll see nothing more than a camera would.
Actually, It IS pretty awful
I know it's kinda nice to see people doing things that involve getting fresh air and having good clean fun while getting some beer and delicious german sausage, but WOW!
It actually looks like they've gotten the worst of both worlds - nac mac feegle didn't play a part in L&L, and neither was there a lot of fighting with men beating each other up and jumping out of windows - only magrat really got the ass-kickin on. So, it looks like a hollywood style mangling of the plot along with fan-style lameness......
IF (and it IS an if), google do start restricting and charging - it would be a pity.
This information was collected for free, and would be disseminated at a cost. While this has been done before (volunteer organisations are not new) - it would probably lead people away from making the effort in the next thing that comes along and is "by the people for the people"
"Windows XP, by comparison, contains about 40 million lines of code, with new bugs found on a frequent basis"
which compares very well to a rate of "very frequently" on "less" lines of code. probably at least 2-3 times better - or "more".