I don't get it. How does this even slightly make the government appear to be doing anything about terrorism. I think it obviously makes them appear to be abusing their laws, and then gloating about it - the Patriot act was supposed to fix terrorism (in happy idea land) - it should NOT be applied to non-terrorism cases. Remember when the justice department guys smilingly assured all of us that even though they could mis-use these new powers, they most certainly wouldn't.
Don't give them any credit towards even appearing to be doing something about terrorism. This is complete and total bullshit. If they thought it was terrorist related, I could maybe understand someone wanting to sympathize - but it is not.
This has about as much to do with stopping terrorism as Iraq.
""The fate of SCO is one of the big question marks. New management at Canopy . . . may push [SCO] to try and settle."
This remark just made my day. Imagine SCO trying to settle, being pressured by it's parent company, sitting with IBM attourneys, trying to 'reach out' to IBM to make some sort of agreement. I figure they'll eventually both agree that SCO has wasted all of their time and money on something that is going to eventually cost it's upper management their careers, and hopefully their freedom (but I doubt they'll realize that quite yet.)
and this:
"We're in a challenging business environment," he said during an earnings teleconference. "[But] we believe there is value in our Unix licensing business and we offer our customers . . . value they need to be made aware of."
It's straight out of The Godfather. Way to tell it, Darl!
If you wanted to sustain interest, maybe wait until you have two or even four pages to go begging the attention of millions of slashdot users. Looks like it might have been cool if there was anything of substance by the time/. asked me to notice.
Just the people reading this article, and a pack or two or gum each, could easily and permanently disable this program. Tell us where the cameras are on the machines, and we'll go out and make sure the cameras can't see a damn thing. Enough malfunctions due ONLY to the cameras being unusable will surely return the machines to their publically funded mandate: to sell us our fucking stamps, without adding us to a photo database.
Surveillance is as hard as the surveilled make it, folks. Let's all chip in to make a better country.
This has so little to do with open source that saying what you just said hurts America. And the world.
Apple disabled an unauthorized hack. The hack was proprietary in the 3rd degree - it was frickin' DRM software! You can't get any more closed source than DRM. If Real had been 'open', there wouldn't have been any DRM, or harmony would be open source, and they'd have a massive army of co-programmers to help re-defeat the new Apple scheme.
This is EXACTLY the same as when AIM changes their protocol to prevent connections from a(ny) particular open source client that they don't like.
It's also possible that the disabling was a side effect of something else - notably using Real using undocumented interfaces to a technology they had no control over to produce a product, and then charging for it. Real is the party at fault here, if not the idiots who bought their stuff.
To the idiots: why the hell don't you just convert to mp3? (if you can't, it's more reason you should have gone with the Apple store)
And CDs cost $15 because that's just how much it costs to produce, reproduce, and distribute them. And the burgers at Disneyland are really worth $12 each.
Movies would still exist without the advertising. They are the PRODUCT, they should not have advertising on them. Products that are themselves advertising, suck.
For the record, I agree that not wanting to sit through the commercials doesn't give you the right to steal it. But sometimes pissed off people do things they don't have the right to do, and I'd say it's a bad idea to piss them off if you don't want them trying to circumvent the propaganda. I've never copied a DVD of course, but if I had, it wouldn't even be for savings, or revenge. It would be because it's cool. I like playing with gadgets.
> So, my question is, what takes the place of the advertising > revenue? How and when is it acceptable for products to be > advertised?
1. Replace advertising as a whole with small human and/or computer search-engine based agencies serving the _customer_, hired by the customer for a fee to cover their account overhead, to find and provide them with useful links to products they like. Their data source is the web, where companies and ratings organizations may put any true or false information they want to. The better agents will produce better matches for their clients because they are better at judging what is good for them and cutting through the bullshit on the net to the useful facts. They would also be better at analyzing those facts and applying them to the knowledge of what is desired by their clients.
Natural selection, market forces, lots of hand-waving, and... presto - an advertising-free market of many independent agencies with varying reputations to remove from the consumer the difficulties of shopping.
What is to stop those agencies from taking kickbacks, providing template reccomendations, etc.. - sucking as an industry? Well, nothing. But many free ones would develop, being computer run by open source types. And they would be less likely to be biased (especially if the source is open.)
2. Without advertising, who pays the bills for content? The viewers. Cable selection ala-carte is the best example in real life, but per-show would be ideal. I'd prefer to see a DRM system with global play-tracking controlling the output of some 3rd-party managed content fund that came out of taxing the surplus out of companies that shouldn't need those advertising dollars anymore (to, for example, gain the favor of the agencies). Or better yet, I'd like my iVideo player to send an anonymous digital cash payment over an anonymous proxy of my choice in exchange for the key to unlock secured content on a digital video file of the show I want to watch. If I paid even 10 cents per hour, I'd be willing to watch about the same amount of TV I do now and if I could prepay on the video player I could limit my watching to a set amount of time - something I wish my TV could do by itself.
Bush clearly does not give a fuck about legitimacy, or he would not consistently go out of his way to point out that he does not have to consult with others. He cares only for power. The winning margin of votes does not change the amount of power that the winner gets.
No, we just need more voters of new types. There ain't much useful informing being done - it doesn't benefit those in power. If everyone had a compelling separate reason to vote, politicians would have a compelling reason to pander to everyone, not just those self-important enough to try to manipulate politics (myself included). In an ideal world, which this idea brings us closer to, everyone votes, and politics manipulates itself for everyone.
I agree - it's public land and if someone has a right to put a sign up, they have an equal right to take one down. I feel entitled (if not obligated) to remove signs supporting president bulsh, but I would not touch one on private property.
I used to have a bumper sticker on my car that said "Fuck Republicans" and it got removed in the dead of night.. Exactly the kind of thing that made me put it up in the first place.
If I have to choose between supporting 'Intellectual Property Theft' and whatever principles are driving current US policy, I'm totally going to support the IP 'thieves'. Fuck the US and their hyperthreaded warfare. Every war is another whole category of enemies for America.
Great one, US Government, just what we needed! More enemies!
Slashdot Mirror
agreed. it's good to see someone else noticing and posting it.
I don't get it. How does this even slightly make the government appear to be doing anything about terrorism. I think it obviously makes them appear to be abusing their laws, and then gloating about it - the Patriot act was supposed to fix terrorism (in happy idea land) - it should NOT be applied to non-terrorism cases. Remember when the justice department guys smilingly assured all of us that even though they could mis-use these new powers, they most certainly wouldn't.
Don't give them any credit towards even appearing to be doing something about terrorism. This is complete and total bullshit. If they thought it was terrorist related, I could maybe understand someone wanting to sympathize - but it is not.
This has about as much to do with stopping terrorism as Iraq.
we have the patriot act to protect us from those rogue laser pointer terrorists trying to blind pilots.
Now when do we get a law to protect from rogue governments trying to point fear colored laser pointers at the public?
""The fate of SCO is one of the big question marks. New management at Canopy . . . may push [SCO] to try and settle."
This remark just made my day. Imagine SCO trying to settle, being pressured by it's parent company, sitting with IBM attourneys, trying to 'reach out' to IBM to make some sort of agreement. I figure they'll eventually both agree that SCO has wasted all of their time and money on something that is going to eventually cost it's upper management their careers, and hopefully their freedom (but I doubt they'll realize that quite yet.)
and this:
"We're in a challenging business environment," he said during an earnings teleconference. "[But] we believe there is value in our Unix licensing business and we offer our customers . . . value they need to be made aware of."
It's straight out of The Godfather. Way to tell it, Darl!
Smiley enhancing software?!!???!
I'd hope it's free.
One page?????
/. asked me to notice.
If you wanted to sustain interest, maybe wait until you have two or even four pages to go begging the attention of millions of slashdot users. Looks like it might have been cool if there was anything of substance by the time
Ok, I love Canada, I plan to move there even, but that sounds about as well thought out as America's war on drugs.
Just the people reading this article, and a pack or two or gum each, could easily and permanently disable this program. Tell us where the cameras are on the machines, and we'll go out and make sure the cameras can't see a damn thing. Enough malfunctions due ONLY to the cameras being unusable will surely return the machines to their publically funded mandate: to sell us our fucking stamps, without adding us to a photo database.
Surveillance is as hard as the surveilled make it, folks. Let's all chip in to make a better country.
I have three words for you:
Ca Na Da
Ok, it's one.
Amsterdam is also great, and Austrailia (though not quite the bastion of freedom I might hope for, it's still probably better than US).
I wouldn't be too excited about how much more freedom you can expect in the UK.
Just my opinion.
Ok listen, stupid.
This has so little to do with open source that saying what you just said hurts America. And the world.
Apple disabled an unauthorized hack. The hack was proprietary in the 3rd degree - it was frickin' DRM software! You can't get any more closed source than DRM. If Real had been 'open', there wouldn't have been any DRM, or harmony would be open source, and they'd have a massive army of co-programmers to help re-defeat the new Apple scheme.
This is EXACTLY the same as when AIM changes their protocol to prevent connections from a(ny) particular open source client that they don't like.
It's also possible that the disabling was a side effect of something else - notably using Real using undocumented interfaces to a technology they had no control over to produce a product, and then charging for it. Real is the party at fault here, if not the idiots who bought their stuff.
To the idiots: why the hell don't you just convert to mp3? (if you can't, it's more reason you should have gone with the Apple store)
I found a link to this on the wikipedia discussion pages, it was just too funny not to share some of Solog the artist's abstract nudes.
What kind of dumbass would pay $30k for a piece of an island which is worth $26k?
uh, yeah right. sure, buddy.
And CDs cost $15 because that's just how much it costs to produce, reproduce, and distribute them. And the burgers at Disneyland are really worth $12 each.
Movies would still exist without the advertising. They are the PRODUCT, they should not have advertising on them. Products that are themselves advertising, suck.
For the record, I agree that not wanting to sit through the commercials doesn't give you the right to steal it. But sometimes pissed off people do things they don't have the right to do, and I'd say it's a bad idea to piss them off if you don't want them trying to circumvent the propaganda. I've never copied a DVD of course, but if I had, it wouldn't even be for savings, or revenge. It would be because it's cool. I like playing with gadgets.
Ok Ok, they are both a bunch of losers. So stop fighting and work for a 3rd party that would actually be empowered to change something if it won.
50% of all species on the planet will be extinct in the next 50 years
Where did you get this information? That's a freaky statistic. I'd like to believe it, it's all sensational and stuff, but I need some evidence.
> Heh, heh. Google's first hit for "pivot table tutorial" is already slashdotted.
That rocks, everyone. I'm proud of you.
> So, my question is, what takes the place of the advertising
... presto - an advertising-free market of many independent agencies with varying reputations to remove from the consumer the difficulties of shopping.
> revenue? How and when is it acceptable for products to be
> advertised?
1. Replace advertising as a whole with small human and/or computer search-engine based agencies serving the _customer_, hired by the customer for a fee to cover their account overhead, to find and provide them with useful links to products they like. Their data source is the web, where companies and ratings organizations may put any true or false information they want to. The better agents will produce better matches for their clients because they are better at judging what is good for them and cutting through the bullshit on the net to the useful facts. They would also be better at analyzing those facts and applying them to the knowledge of what is desired by their clients.
Natural selection, market forces, lots of hand-waving, and
What is to stop those agencies from taking kickbacks, providing template reccomendations, etc.. - sucking as an industry? Well, nothing. But many free ones would develop, being computer run by open source types. And they would be less likely to be biased (especially if the source is open.)
2. Without advertising, who pays the bills for content? The viewers. Cable selection ala-carte is the best example in real life, but per-show would be ideal. I'd prefer to see a DRM system with global play-tracking controlling the output of some 3rd-party managed content fund that came out of taxing the surplus out of companies that shouldn't need those advertising dollars anymore (to, for example, gain the favor of the agencies). Or better yet, I'd like my iVideo player to send an anonymous digital cash payment over an anonymous proxy of my choice in exchange for the key to unlock secured content on a digital video file of the show I want to watch. If I paid even 10 cents per hour, I'd be willing to watch about the same amount of TV I do now and if I could prepay on the video player I could limit my watching to a set amount of time - something I wish my TV could do by itself.
I'm with you, man. Space is MUCH closer than Mars.
Hmm.. How about equal protection under the law? You know, the first of those so-called 'self-evident' truths..
Bush clearly does not give a fuck about legitimacy, or he would not consistently go out of his way to point out that he does not have to consult with others. He cares only for power. The winning margin of votes does not change the amount of power that the winner gets.
We have no honest partner in North Korea.
Ok. But that doesn't mean it's tolerable to also have no honest partner in our own white house.
No, we just need more voters of new types. There ain't much useful informing being done - it doesn't benefit those in power. If everyone had a compelling separate reason to vote, politicians would have a compelling reason to pander to everyone, not just those self-important enough to try to manipulate politics (myself included). In an ideal world, which this idea brings us closer to, everyone votes, and politics manipulates itself for everyone.
I agree - it's public land and if someone has a right to put a sign up, they have an equal right to take one down. I feel entitled (if not obligated) to remove signs supporting president bulsh, but I would not touch one on private property.
I used to have a bumper sticker on my car that said "Fuck Republicans" and it got removed in the dead of night.. Exactly the kind of thing that made me put it up in the first place.
If I have to choose between supporting 'Intellectual Property Theft' and whatever principles are driving current US policy, I'm totally going to support the IP 'thieves'. Fuck the US and their hyperthreaded warfare. Every war is another whole category of enemies for America.
Great one, US Government, just what we needed! More enemies!