Why would you ask for "stories... relating how bad it can be if it goes wrong" rather than studies demonstrating how likely the inevitable horror story is?
With any sufficiently popular procedure, some things will go wrong for some people. Hell, there are probably people who have had hemmorhages, heart attacks, and strokes while having the procedure, but that doesn't reflect badly on the procedure; it's only a result of its popularity. Put enough people through it and something bad will happen to someone no matter what the procedure: even our beloved President apparently fainted while watching TV and eating a pretzel.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 1
You could always go through some sort of anonymizing proxy, like anonymizer. No doubt the proxy'd limit your bandwidth, though, or you could use them to spam and get them blacklisted.
Um, do you actually know any current college students? They may not be able to install linux blindfolded, but they are sure as hell savvy enough to install kazaa and download tunes. They also know how to share tunes over AIM file transfers. And if some don't, it's enough of a basic skill that others will teach them.
If I were a student at GWU, I'd be furious at the administration.
It's not the college's job to enforce the law. They don't have to follow me when I walk into a store to make sure I don't shoplift. They don't have to monitor my financial transactions (even if I make them on a university computer) to ensure I don't commit securities fraud. And they certainly don't need to spend MY TUITION DOLLARS so that I don't infringe on some corporation's copyrights.
Add into the mix that they're spending my money on proprietary formats with proprietary DRM, supporting companies and causes I universally revile, and I'd frankly prefer they spent the money dumping feces in the center of campus.
Oh -- and a college education is DAMN EXPENSIVE these days. We're talking $40,000 every year. For four years, that's $160,000. And it's increasing steadily by about 5% per year. College tuition absolutely drains all but the very wealthy. It's only barely tolerable when you can convince yourself that that money is being spent on education. But the idea of spending my family's sweat, blood, and tears on nothing more than MAKING COPYRIGHT BARONS HAPPY is just insane. I'd be furious.
Before you submit that flesh-rending flame you're mentally preparing, recognize that this study only demonstrates correllation. Perhaps it's only because Macs cost more, people who can afford more expensive things tend to be richer, and rich people tend to have better educational backgrounds.
None of it means that using a PC in any way CAUSES you to be dumb.
Like it or not, the Constitution changes every single time the Supreme Court makes a decision. If you really want a grasp of United States Constitutional Law, reading the 5-page Constution doesn't cut it -- you have some 5000 pages of Supreme Court case law to study as well. Suggesting that the Constitution is a stable document is true but disingenuous: while the document itself doesn't change, the law that it dictates certainly does, probably comparably to thousand-page state constitutions.
Besides, your argument is against spurious or umimportant amendment, whereas I predicate my argument on the notion that the amendment would make the Constitution better.
Yes, ideally statutes would handle these things. As Judge Posner recently suggested in an article he co-wrote, though, copyright seems inordinately subject to dirty politics. Monied interests unanimously and vigorously push for longer copyright terms and greater consumer restrictions, whereas other IP law like patent law has other monied interests fighting on behalf of the public domain (everyone who makes generic drugs, e.g.). By contrast, the copyright arena marshals precious few defenders of the public domain, and none who have the economic clout of the RIAA and MPAA.
So, frankly, I think Congress has proved itself incapable of crafting good copyright law. Statutes always seem to swing in the same direction: away from balance. That's why I think it'd be just dandy if we could (somehow) amend the Constitution to limit copyright terms to a fixed length, or even if the Supreme Court would do their judicial activist thing to fix it for us. I understand and appreciate your point of view, but ultimately I just disagree.
Basically what you'd need for Jabber interoperability with AIM, YM, and MSNM is consent of AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft. That is the missing component, has always been the missing component, and will probably continue to be the missing component for years.
Myth I and II, by Bungie, had the most impressive narrations I've ever heard. Even the in-game commentary was damn good, for the most part. I don't know how they did such a good job -- it was honestly head-and-shoulders above any other narration I've ever heard.
Second place goes to Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. For some reason, the acting melded with the character so well that it really leant the low-polygon Prince an empathizable personality. I don't know what their secret was, but it worked.
I hated the narration in Eternal Darkness. Again, don't ask me why. This is an area that I cannot explain rationally.
Why must the Constitution be flawed before we amend it? Isn't it enough that it could be better? For my part, I think enshrining copyright restrictions/clarifications right into the bloody document might do wonders to overcome the corrupting influence of campaign contributions.
Of course, for that exact problem, we'd never get the requisite support for the amendment either, but a man can dream...
You will probably purchase a new machine in 18 months anyway.
No no no... this is your PC experience talking. You don't need to replace macs more often than once in five or six years. My 500mHz TiBook from 1999 is still going strong -- and I don't just mean that it's not broken; it's actually still quite comfortable to use, doesn't feel sluggish, and handles all of my tasks well.
That said, sometimes Apple will come out with something SO SEXY that you will upgrade anyway... but realize that this is very different from the Dell cycle of obsolescence.
Right, whatever. And the KKK members would rather watch a horse with a white woman than a black man, and the neo-Nazis would rather watch a horse with a Christian woman than a Jewish man, and... etc.
You're just another tiresome bigot. Eventually your angry kind will die out or be ostracized and the world will be a lot better off for it. Go away.
Nope, not a joke. When a news source introduces a point of view as belonging to "Joe Bloe, a local gadfly," "John Smith, a rabid opponent of security checks," or "Frank Blotzinflotz, a frequent dissident," I actually listen to what the guy has to say -- more so than if the qualifier were absent.
That applies to ACLU leaders, MoveOn organizers, Michael Moore supporters, and so on: the mainstream press tends to try to distance itself from these people by emphasizing their biases, but the mainstream has trended so far toward unquestioning obsequiousness that these supposed radicals are the ones who speak most levelly to my ears.
You're absolutely right. Every photo shoot sports a waving flag as a background. Rhetorically, "patriotic" has come to mean "in support of Bush's political agenda." It's gotten to the point that I naturally trust a news source more when he's labelled a dissident. I'm leery of people who display an American flag, and group monotonation of the Pledge make me very uncomfortable. I wish we could take back our country's symbolism from the fascists (or neocons or whatever you want to call them) who have appropriated it.
GWB doesn't HAVE to veto any bills; he merely THREATENS to do so, and then senators realize that the bills don't have a hope of passing and they stop wasting time on them. We'll never get a supermajority of the Senate on anything except anti-telemarketing bills until november, so the threat of veto kills the bill where it stands.
More than that, some states (such as Connecticut) were settled by Puritans trying to escape religious persecution; some (like Virginia) were settled by convicts who traded a prison sentence for a shot in the New World; and some were just settled by British tourists and frontiersmen. The cultural differences were great.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was born I weighed ~7 pounds.
:P
Today, I weight 135.
That means that, throughout my life, I've consumed 128 pounds more than I've excreted.
With any sufficiently popular procedure, some things will go wrong for some people. Hell, there are probably people who have had hemmorhages, heart attacks, and strokes while having the procedure, but that doesn't reflect badly on the procedure; it's only a result of its popularity. Put enough people through it and something bad will happen to someone no matter what the procedure: even our beloved President apparently fainted while watching TV and eating a pretzel.
You could always go through some sort of anonymizing proxy, like anonymizer. No doubt the proxy'd limit your bandwidth, though, or you could use them to spam and get them blacklisted.
Why? During the Prohibition, no one learned to respect the illegality of alcohol. It was easier just to change the law.
Maybe someday you'll open your eyes and realize your relationship with the RIAA is an abusive one...
I got an iPod specifically so I wouldn't have to listen to the radio. Radio reception and mp3 playback don't complement one another at all.
Um, do you actually know any current college students? They may not be able to install linux blindfolded, but they are sure as hell savvy enough to install kazaa and download tunes. They also know how to share tunes over AIM file transfers. And if some don't, it's enough of a basic skill that others will teach them.
If I were a student at GWU, I'd be furious at the administration.
It's not the college's job to enforce the law. They don't have to follow me when I walk into a store to make sure I don't shoplift. They don't have to monitor my financial transactions (even if I make them on a university computer) to ensure I don't commit securities fraud. And they certainly don't need to spend MY TUITION DOLLARS so that I don't infringe on some corporation's copyrights.
Add into the mix that they're spending my money on proprietary formats with proprietary DRM, supporting companies and causes I universally revile, and I'd frankly prefer they spent the money dumping feces in the center of campus.
Oh -- and a college education is DAMN EXPENSIVE these days. We're talking $40,000 every year. For four years, that's $160,000. And it's increasing steadily by about 5% per year. College tuition absolutely drains all but the very wealthy. It's only barely tolerable when you can convince yourself that that money is being spent on education. But the idea of spending my family's sweat, blood, and tears on nothing more than MAKING COPYRIGHT BARONS HAPPY is just insane. I'd be furious.
Before you submit that flesh-rending flame you're mentally preparing, recognize that this study only demonstrates correllation. Perhaps it's only because Macs cost more, people who can afford more expensive things tend to be richer, and rich people tend to have better educational backgrounds.
None of it means that using a PC in any way CAUSES you to be dumb.
(although I do use a Mac... heh heh heh...)
All of those games are direct Rogue descendents: Hack, Nethack, Moria, Angband, and all the other Roguelikes...
Like it or not, the Constitution changes every single time the Supreme Court makes a decision. If you really want a grasp of United States Constitutional Law, reading the 5-page Constution doesn't cut it -- you have some 5000 pages of Supreme Court case law to study as well. Suggesting that the Constitution is a stable document is true but disingenuous: while the document itself doesn't change, the law that it dictates certainly does, probably comparably to thousand-page state constitutions.
Besides, your argument is against spurious or umimportant amendment, whereas I predicate my argument on the notion that the amendment would make the Constitution better.
Yes, ideally statutes would handle these things. As Judge Posner recently suggested in an article he co-wrote, though, copyright seems inordinately subject to dirty politics. Monied interests unanimously and vigorously push for longer copyright terms and greater consumer restrictions, whereas other IP law like patent law has other monied interests fighting on behalf of the public domain (everyone who makes generic drugs, e.g.). By contrast, the copyright arena marshals precious few defenders of the public domain, and none who have the economic clout of the RIAA and MPAA.
So, frankly, I think Congress has proved itself incapable of crafting good copyright law. Statutes always seem to swing in the same direction: away from balance. That's why I think it'd be just dandy if we could (somehow) amend the Constitution to limit copyright terms to a fixed length, or even if the Supreme Court would do their judicial activist thing to fix it for us. I understand and appreciate your point of view, but ultimately I just disagree.
That was actually a joke, not crap. Just so you know.
But even if it weren't, you have to admit that the modding numbers probably at least skew the data...
Basically what you'd need for Jabber interoperability with AIM, YM, and MSNM is consent of AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft. That is the missing component, has always been the missing component, and will probably continue to be the missing component for years.
Myth I and II, by Bungie, had the most impressive narrations I've ever heard. Even the in-game commentary was damn good, for the most part. I don't know how they did such a good job -- it was honestly head-and-shoulders above any other narration I've ever heard.
Second place goes to Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. For some reason, the acting melded with the character so well that it really leant the low-polygon Prince an empathizable personality. I don't know what their secret was, but it worked.
I hated the narration in Eternal Darkness. Again, don't ask me why. This is an area that I cannot explain rationally.
WELL said. Rare is the slashdotter who grasps these subtleties...
Why must the Constitution be flawed before we amend it? Isn't it enough that it could be better? For my part, I think enshrining copyright restrictions/clarifications right into the bloody document might do wonders to overcome the corrupting influence of campaign contributions.
Of course, for that exact problem, we'd never get the requisite support for the amendment either, but a man can dream...
No no no... this is your PC experience talking. You don't need to replace macs more often than once in five or six years. My 500mHz TiBook from 1999 is still going strong -- and I don't just mean that it's not broken; it's actually still quite comfortable to use, doesn't feel sluggish, and handles all of my tasks well.
That said, sometimes Apple will come out with something SO SEXY that you will upgrade anyway... but realize that this is very different from the Dell cycle of obsolescence.
Nah, they'll call it the Ybox.
Bah. Everyone buying an Xbox at THIS point is only installing linux or SNES emulators. That's what I'm doing...
Right, whatever. And the KKK members would rather watch a horse with a white woman than a black man, and the neo-Nazis would rather watch a horse with a Christian woman than a Jewish man, and... etc.
You're just another tiresome bigot. Eventually your angry kind will die out or be ostracized and the world will be a lot better off for it. Go away.
Nope, not a joke. When a news source introduces a point of view as belonging to "Joe Bloe, a local gadfly," "John Smith, a rabid opponent of security checks," or "Frank Blotzinflotz, a frequent dissident," I actually listen to what the guy has to say -- more so than if the qualifier were absent.
That applies to ACLU leaders, MoveOn organizers, Michael Moore supporters, and so on: the mainstream press tends to try to distance itself from these people by emphasizing their biases, but the mainstream has trended so far toward unquestioning obsequiousness that these supposed radicals are the ones who speak most levelly to my ears.
You're absolutely right. Every photo shoot sports a waving flag as a background. Rhetorically, "patriotic" has come to mean "in support of Bush's political agenda." It's gotten to the point that I naturally trust a news source more when he's labelled a dissident. I'm leery of people who display an American flag, and group monotonation of the Pledge make me very uncomfortable. I wish we could take back our country's symbolism from the fascists (or neocons or whatever you want to call them) who have appropriated it.
Congress authorized the Iraq war. That counts.
GWB doesn't HAVE to veto any bills; he merely THREATENS to do so, and then senators realize that the bills don't have a hope of passing and they stop wasting time on them. We'll never get a supermajority of the Senate on anything except anti-telemarketing bills until november, so the threat of veto kills the bill where it stands.
More than that, some states (such as Connecticut) were settled by Puritans trying to escape religious persecution; some (like Virginia) were settled by convicts who traded a prison sentence for a shot in the New World; and some were just settled by British tourists and frontiersmen. The cultural differences were great.
You're a tiresome person, Brandybuck...