Who says they haven't colonized our galaxy by now? We just may not recognize them as such. How can you be expected to recognize an ET when you've never, to your knowledge, seen an ET to start with? Heck, we even could be them.
I never completely understand why people argue "God says it"
Doesn't this mean that this planet is completely set up now for the first alien with a little bag of God Tricks who arrives and proclaims himself ruler of everything?
While companies like Microsoft have already patched their software,
Ahem, not exactly. No patch for the perfectly good Exchange 5.5 server we're using with Outlook 2000. Suddenly we have to update to the latest Exchange and Outlook 2003 on every d@mn desktop. And I'm in Arizona were we don't even have daylight savings time!!!
So frigging what if SCO is completely correct in everything they suspect? So what if some lawyers are using Pamela Jones for a pen name -- and I'm not saying they are. Personally, I don't know. What I do know is that it doesn't change a single thing about the SCO/IBM case if it is true. I doubt SCO could even embarrass them if they proved this was happening. This is just SCO wasting time, the court's time, and attempting to hassle anyone they can because THEY HAVE NO CASE!
Really, it helps consumers in that the RIAA is less likely to sue innocent people, and only sue those people who are actually violating the law.
I don't agree with your logic here at all. Making suits more expensive makes you be more selective about whom you pursue. This makes them very much less expensive because they are now -- or will be under this -- able to send you settlement demands directly without having to file in court. They can't lose on these, be awarded court costs when they do lose, or worry about setting any legal precedents. I feel this makes them more likely to pursue alleged filesharers, not less likely. Also, nothing in here says anything about making the process more accurate in identification. Every log in the world doesn't say who was sitting at the computer, or coming in over an unsecured wireless connection.
In fact, I feel the reason they want the complete logs is a Trojan Horse. If you say you never uploaded any data, except to their Media Sentry lapdog, and they come in with logs showing gigabytes of uploads along the way, you'll now have to defend on a new front of just what your other activities are -- which may be completely legal and none of the RIAA's, or public court's business. All the same, you may find yourself in hot water for running a completely legal Tor server, or anything else that utilizes all the unlimited bandwidth you thought you purchased. It's bad all around.
Ah,so it's all the ISP's fault. Couldn't be anything that the RIAA is doing wrong.
This is nothing more than an attempted end-run around the courts. Having proven that they are willing to go to court in a few thousand cases (out of a few million, and rising, number of filesharers), the RIAA wants to dispense with the courts altogether. Before they couldn't get their message to you that they knew who you were, and were gonna get you if you didn't fork over thousands of $$$s first, without a court subpoena. And a few million [Who is] John Doe lawsuits weren't going to fly there. Now they claim their victims are crying out for this solution, and it is a "favor" for the ISP's to offer it. And oh, if you RTFLetter, they don't want the ISP help desk employees directing any of these victims to other web-sites any longer. Sites that might tell them what their actual rights truly are, or where lawyers can be found. That's verboten.
So this becomes a quick, cheap route to shake out those willing to settle at the first whiff of danger, and a great time and money saving opportunity for the RIAA. Anybody think that this won't just increase the number of threats they make? Like to maybe everybody Media Sentry and their still questionably secret methods can point a finger at (and we know which finger they're pointing). The record companies are certainly trying to find a way to collect their due from everyone in the entire country who they believe has infringed their copyrights, under their own expansive and untested definition of what constitutes infringement!
All this on the same day a report has come out saying that filesharing, at least back in the 2002 timeframe when the record industry claimed they were being "devastated" by P2P users, say that the effect of P2P filesharing was "statistically insignificant" in causing the drop in CD sales.
So where do I find ISP's who don't keep logs?
But what really pisses me off about this is the continual recording industry refrain of: "We doing it for the (starving) artists." What I hear is that the record companies are trying to reduce the royalty payments from digital sales -- sales that occur at virtually no cost at all to the record companies themselves -- to the artists themselves.
Basically, I pose that file sharing is taking the place of radio to promote artists.
One problem here. To hear an artist on P2P, you need to search for them, either by name, or song title. While this is great to find other artist's covers of a favorite song, a new artist with a new song title doesn't have an easy road to being discovered, downloaded, and listened to.
Radio, OTOH, will play stuff you never knew existed until you heard it there.
If caching is copying, than every user who isn't watching a streaming feed -- which isn't the way text and single image pages are rendered -- is guilty of copyright infringement every time they view a page. Your browser makes a copy of the page on your own hard drive. Watch out!! Here come the lawyers now.
Google ought to just pull-out from indexing anyone who complains about their methods. You effectively disappear off of the Internet w/o Google, and these whiny complainers deserve exactly that. Maybe after they've lived in a black hole for a while they'll realize the benefit of having their free material easy for web users to find and view.
With BluRay in every PS3, HD-DVD not an integral part of any shipping product yet, and BluRay movies starting to outsell HD-DVD, there good reason to be betting on the BluRay horse. BluRay market penetration should outstrip HD-DVD, unless they're able to pull a VHS in pricing or capacity.
f he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
And ethanol does nothing significant for CO2 reduction, or is Global Warming not your concern?
Maybe the issue is more complicated than just non-specific summaries of gun control laws and crime rates? Those might work if we trusted you as an expert, but trust is in short supply in these debates.
He quoted his sources, which, I notice, is more than you have just done.
The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol
And this interests readers of Slashdot... how?
Latest figures I've seen say if every grain of corn was turned into ethanol that it would only represent 12% of total USA gasoline usage, and that's only gasoline, which doesn't affect other energy usage. And we'd starve Mexico in the process. It's more political fluff on the part of the this article poster, than reality. And does he want to ban alcoholic drinks as well, and pour them into cars? Furthermore, burning ethanol does nothing to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which I thought he was also unrealistically big on.
Can Tor successfully fight Google logging all your search queries? More than once now, Google -- who are reported to have a database of every query ever made to their search engine -- have given police lists of searches made from a given computer. Would Tor stop them from being able to do this? Would this destroy a valuable asset of Google if Tor became widely used?
Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do does reaching 1080p make you more like to buy a game?
That's not the question for today. We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions. There haven't been that many of them sold. But over the life of the console itself it will matter. What will you own a year from now? Two years? A whole lot more people may have them by then, and like games that take full advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Question of the Moment: Can it make Vista look salable?
OTOH, colonize the galaxy? Boring!!!
Doesn't this mean that this planet is completely set up now for the first alien with a little bag of God Tricks who arrives and proclaims himself ruler of everything?
Why always the worst case is the one presented? They are equally likely to charge you off-peak rates during peak periods.
Ahem, not exactly. No patch for the perfectly good Exchange 5.5 server we're using with Outlook 2000. Suddenly we have to update to the latest Exchange and Outlook 2003 on every d@mn desktop. And I'm in Arizona were we don't even have daylight savings time!!!
I'm surprised that 7 of 10 sites even contain personal data. Just what sites was he checking?
Or they're dating each other.
Now that you've read it here in the Internet, it must be true.
So frigging what if SCO is completely correct in everything they suspect? So what if some lawyers are using Pamela Jones for a pen name -- and I'm not saying they are. Personally, I don't know. What I do know is that it doesn't change a single thing about the SCO/IBM case if it is true. I doubt SCO could even embarrass them if they proved this was happening. This is just SCO wasting time, the court's time, and attempting to hassle anyone they can because THEY HAVE NO CASE!
Sony was just touting that BluRay was outselling HD-DVD by 2:1. Now watch sales skyrocket!
I don't agree with your logic here at all. Making suits more expensive makes you be more selective about whom you pursue. This makes them very much less expensive because they are now -- or will be under this -- able to send you settlement demands directly without having to file in court. They can't lose on these, be awarded court costs when they do lose, or worry about setting any legal precedents. I feel this makes them more likely to pursue alleged filesharers, not less likely. Also, nothing in here says anything about making the process more accurate in identification. Every log in the world doesn't say who was sitting at the computer, or coming in over an unsecured wireless connection.
In fact, I feel the reason they want the complete logs is a Trojan Horse. If you say you never uploaded any data, except to their Media Sentry lapdog, and they come in with logs showing gigabytes of uploads along the way, you'll now have to defend on a new front of just what your other activities are -- which may be completely legal and none of the RIAA's, or public court's business. All the same, you may find yourself in hot water for running a completely legal Tor server, or anything else that utilizes all the unlimited bandwidth you thought you purchased. It's bad all around.
This is nothing more than an attempted end-run around the courts. Having proven that they are willing to go to court in a few thousand cases (out of a few million, and rising, number of filesharers), the RIAA wants to dispense with the courts altogether. Before they couldn't get their message to you that they knew who you were, and were gonna get you if you didn't fork over thousands of $$$s first, without a court subpoena. And a few million [Who is] John Doe lawsuits weren't going to fly there. Now they claim their victims are crying out for this solution, and it is a "favor" for the ISP's to offer it. And oh, if you RTFLetter, they don't want the ISP help desk employees directing any of these victims to other web-sites any longer. Sites that might tell them what their actual rights truly are, or where lawyers can be found. That's verboten.
So this becomes a quick, cheap route to shake out those willing to settle at the first whiff of danger, and a great time and money saving opportunity for the RIAA. Anybody think that this won't just increase the number of threats they make? Like to maybe everybody Media Sentry and their still questionably secret methods can point a finger at (and we know which finger they're pointing). The record companies are certainly trying to find a way to collect their due from everyone in the entire country who they believe has infringed their copyrights, under their own expansive and untested definition of what constitutes infringement!
All this on the same day a report has come out saying that filesharing, at least back in the 2002 timeframe when the record industry claimed they were being "devastated" by P2P users, say that the effect of P2P filesharing was "statistically insignificant" in causing the drop in CD sales.
So where do I find ISP's who don't keep logs?
But what really pisses me off about this is the continual recording industry refrain of: "We doing it for the (starving) artists." What I hear is that the record companies are trying to reduce the royalty payments from digital sales -- sales that occur at virtually no cost at all to the record companies themselves -- to the artists themselves.
One problem here. To hear an artist on P2P, you need to search for them, either by name, or song title. While this is great to find other artist's covers of a favorite song, a new artist with a new song title doesn't have an easy road to being discovered, downloaded, and listened to.
Radio, OTOH, will play stuff you never knew existed until you heard it there.
I think you mean recind. Resending means you'd send it to them again, even if you didn't want them to have it any longer.
Desired outcome/Wet dream... they want a big wad of Google's big pile of $$$$$
If caching is copying, than every user who isn't watching a streaming feed -- which isn't the way text and single image pages are rendered -- is guilty of copyright infringement every time they view a page. Your browser makes a copy of the page on your own hard drive. Watch out!! Here come the lawyers now.
Google ought to just pull-out from indexing anyone who complains about their methods. You effectively disappear off of the Internet w/o Google, and these whiny complainers deserve exactly that. Maybe after they've lived in a black hole for a while they'll realize the benefit of having their free material easy for web users to find and view.
With BluRay in every PS3, HD-DVD not an integral part of any shipping product yet, and BluRay movies starting to outsell HD-DVD, there good reason to be betting on the BluRay horse. BluRay market penetration should outstrip HD-DVD, unless they're able to pull a VHS in pricing or capacity.
Why should digital music be different than any other kind of music. After enough playing, doesn't it wear the sharp edges off of all those 1's?
That he's not Hillary.
The "tinyurl" version of your post is:
Obama says many things, but in the end he always votes extremely liberal.
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
And ethanol does nothing significant for CO2 reduction, or is Global Warming not your concern?
He quoted his sources, which, I notice, is more than you have just done.
And this interests readers of Slashdot ... how?
Latest figures I've seen say if every grain of corn was turned into ethanol that it would only represent 12% of total USA gasoline usage, and that's only gasoline, which doesn't affect other energy usage. And we'd starve Mexico in the process. It's more political fluff on the part of the this article poster, than reality. And does he want to ban alcoholic drinks as well, and pour them into cars? Furthermore, burning ethanol does nothing to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which I thought he was also unrealistically big on.
Politician and Science -- a very bad mix.
Can Tor successfully fight Google logging all your search queries? More than once now, Google -- who are reported to have a database of every query ever made to their search engine -- have given police lists of searches made from a given computer. Would Tor stop them from being able to do this? Would this destroy a valuable asset of Google if Tor became widely used?
That's not the question for today. We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions. There haven't been that many of them sold. But over the life of the console itself it will matter. What will you own a year from now? Two years? A whole lot more people may have them by then, and like games that take full advantage.