I get most of my help by hanging around on Linux IRC channels, helping where I can as best I can, and then asking for help when I need it, after doing as much searching as I can think to with Google, has been reasonably successful, even in a few cases that don't have anything to do with Linux. People on IRC seem to be rather polite and reasonable, as long as you're the same way.
Of course it will screw up. You'll go through a menu of voices, trying to find one you like, until you select a nice British-sounding one. Then the computer will try to kill you and steal your wife, but you won't really die. Then it's time to take an axe to the machine, only first you'll go after the water heater. Finally, you'll remove its British Charm Unit and sell it to your sisters-in-law.
Why stop at the mute button? Why not remove the power button, and any volume control at all? Oh, and while we're at it, let's put a camera at the top, and send everything back to a central authority.
No one is telling anyone they are not allowed to watch what they want, which would be an abridgement of free speech against the person who was trying to allow others to watch what that individual wanted, but rather not allow someone not to watch only the parts they want. How is this really any different from allowing scene selection? ("Let's see... I want to watch Moria, then Weathertop, and then I want to watch the Amon Sul. After that, Matrix lobby scene, followed by Agent defeat.") I don't see any difference between watching scenes in a particular order, through using scene selection or, heaven forbid, PowerDVD's bookamark system, and a DVD player that skips particular scenes entirely.
This position is similar to a position that says "You are required to watch our films." It's not censorship, since it doesn't forbid some things from being shown, but it is absurd and outrageous.
Another portion of the bill claims a $500,000 fine and up to ten years in prison for possession of a laptop or desktop computer without Windows installed as the sole operating system.
So, it's like Itchy & Scratchy Money, but less fun?
Homer: One adult and four children.
Woman: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money?
Homer: What's that?
Woman: Well it's money that's made just for the park. It works just like regular money, but it's, er..."fun".
Bart: Do it, Dad.
Homer: Well, OK, if it's fun...let's see, uh...I'll take $1100 worth.
[he walks in, sees all the signs: "No I&S Money", "We Don't Take Itchy and Scratchy Money", etc.]
Aw!
-- So much for fun, "Itchy and Scratchy Land"
Courtesy of SNPP.com.
Not to mention the costs of bearing the kids to Colorado (from New York), and back. Most of the article is just trying to justify or rationalize the expense; just look at any of the quotes.
"It's not applied science. We're not going to find a cure for cancer, but there may be a lot of indirect results."
"Someday something we learned may help in an ecosystem in space, or even on another planet."
"The real value is connecting what kids do in math and science to a bigger world."
The only redeeming feature is that the article gives the impression of an unmanned spacecraft, so at least an oaf won't screw up the experiments. Children should learn, but not by spending mountains of tax dollars on watching insects fly in space.
Forgive me, I kind of lost my train of thought about halfway through, but I'm posting this anyway.
I think the whole situation boils down to this:
"Sony's electronics side needs to let customers move files around effortlessly, but its entertainment side wants to build in restraints, because it sees every customer as a potential thief." A more successful paradigm would be to see every thief as a potential customer. Let people rip, mix, burn, all they like. If people find value in purchasing something, they will buy it. Basic economics. There is a sense of guilt in getting something for free that is not being offered for free. The primary rationalization for doing so is that one is stealing from thieves; however, if there is value, people will buy it out of a sense of justice. Conversely, if there's no value, people won't buy it. Either way, it doesn't matter if people can get it for free or not, legitimatly or not.
As a real-world example, one of my favorite bands provides all their tracks online (in RealPlayer format) for a slight hassle in banner advertisements. I question how much bandwidth this sucks up on their end, and how the economics of it work out, but because of the tracks provided, I bought my first CD in several years (I watch TV and play video games instead of listen to the radio or CDs, typically). And I can't find Nuclearblast (the label's) name on this list, so no guilt on my end.
Also, I just helped someone out with buzzword bingo in that second paragraph. Oh, well.
Alfred Loomis, "one of the most powerful men on Wall Street in the 1920's, a brilliant physicist, inventor of RADAR, LORAN, and the man who kicked off the race to build the atom bomb."
Alfred Loomis? Are you sure that's not Ron Popeil?
So, if I want to get away from the Killer Bees, my best bet is to hop on the Segway; or get the crocodile to eat the Killer Bees, but then I'll just have a crocodile with bees in its mouth, and when it croaks it will shoot bees at me... But when it comes to the lava flow, I'm better off taking to me feet and running away. But for the tyrannosaurus, I'll just hope I can outrun the guy next to me.
This is more valuable information than you'd think.
Here's Your Answer, from the Article...
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 1
"'At the time, I didn't believe I was going to get caught. I looked at it as very benign and trivial and more of a pain in the butt,' he said. 'When they started to enact federal laws against computer hacking I continued in that mindset' without realizing the seriousness of the activity and its potential consequences.'" - Kevin Mitnick, paragraph 14
So, from what I can tell, no, he didn't consider or wasn't aware of the risks he was taking; but this paragraph is repeating the last one.
I spent a lot of my childhood playing with Legos, and the time I wasn't spending playing with Legos, I was playing with computers.
Anyway, to the point, during middle school, one of my projects was to build simple robots and control systems, using Legos and an Apple][e. It's been quite a few years, so I barely remember the details, but one of them drove around, another one acted as a motion sensor; the most complex one undertook a series of actions when the motion sensor was triggered, so it was nothing extraordinary; but Legos are (or at least were) used in some schools. This was a few years before Technics were even available, I think; so they may have even been the prototype.
Slashdot Mirror
I get most of my help by hanging around on Linux IRC channels, helping where I can as best I can, and then asking for help when I need it, after doing as much searching as I can think to with Google, has been reasonably successful, even in a few cases that don't have anything to do with Linux. People on IRC seem to be rather polite and reasonable, as long as you're the same way.
Of course it will screw up. You'll go through a menu of voices, trying to find one you like, until you select a nice British-sounding one. Then the computer will try to kill you and steal your wife, but you won't really die. Then it's time to take an axe to the machine, only first you'll go after the water heater. Finally, you'll remove its British Charm Unit and sell it to your sisters-in-law.
No, it's because before they start building these homes of the future, they're planning to replace everyone with *robots*.
Yeah, but will they regenerate after half a minute?
Why stop at the mute button? Why not remove the power button, and any volume control at all? Oh, and while we're at it, let's put a camera at the top, and send everything back to a central authority.
No one is telling anyone they are not allowed to watch what they want, which would be an abridgement of free speech against the person who was trying to allow others to watch what that individual wanted, but rather not allow someone not to watch only the parts they want. How is this really any different from allowing scene selection? ("Let's see... I want to watch Moria, then Weathertop, and then I want to watch the Amon Sul. After that, Matrix lobby scene, followed by Agent defeat.") I don't see any difference between watching scenes in a particular order, through using scene selection or, heaven forbid, PowerDVD's bookamark system, and a DVD player that skips particular scenes entirely.
This position is similar to a position that says "You are required to watch our films." It's not censorship, since it doesn't forbid some things from being shown, but it is absurd and outrageous.
The next time you take a stab at something, aim for your eye. Then take a nice long break.
Another portion of the bill claims a $500,000 fine and up to ten years in prison for possession of a laptop or desktop computer without Windows installed as the sole operating system.
So, it's like Itchy & Scratchy Money, but less fun?
Homer: One adult and four children.
Woman: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money?
Homer: What's that?
Woman: Well it's money that's made just for the park. It works just like regular money, but it's, er..."fun".
Bart: Do it, Dad.
Homer: Well, OK, if it's fun...let's see, uh...I'll take $1100 worth.
[he walks in, sees all the signs: "No I&S Money", "We Don't Take Itchy and Scratchy Money", etc.]
Aw!
-- So much for fun, "Itchy and Scratchy Land"
Courtesy of SNPP.com.
The first I heard of it was Slashdot's " Sporting Event Featuring Commercials." Then, I found out there was free food down the hall.
There should be more holidays about food.
What, is there something good on TV or something?
Not to mention the costs of bearing the kids to Colorado (from New York), and back. Most of the article is just trying to justify or rationalize the expense; just look at any of the quotes.
"It's not applied science. We're not going to find a cure for cancer, but there may be a lot of indirect results."
"Someday something we learned may help in an ecosystem in space, or even on another planet."
"The real value is connecting what kids do in math and science to a bigger world."
The only redeeming feature is that the article gives the impression of an unmanned spacecraft, so at least an oaf won't screw up the experiments. Children should learn, but not by spending mountains of tax dollars on watching insects fly in space.
Rumor has it that you can now buy Guiness by the quart. It'll just be a matter of time until someone combines Guiness with gas station technology.
Can I have the private key?
If yes, no problem; this is probably not a Bad Thing, and may even be a Good Thing.
If no, time to buy a Macintosh.
Forgive me, I kind of lost my train of thought about halfway through, but I'm posting this anyway.
I think the whole situation boils down to this: "Sony's electronics side needs to let customers move files around effortlessly, but its entertainment side wants to build in restraints, because it sees every customer as a potential thief." A more successful paradigm would be to see every thief as a potential customer. Let people rip, mix, burn, all they like. If people find value in purchasing something, they will buy it. Basic economics. There is a sense of guilt in getting something for free that is not being offered for free. The primary rationalization for doing so is that one is stealing from thieves; however, if there is value, people will buy it out of a sense of justice. Conversely, if there's no value, people won't buy it. Either way, it doesn't matter if people can get it for free or not, legitimatly or not.
As a real-world example, one of my favorite bands provides all their tracks online (in RealPlayer format) for a slight hassle in banner advertisements. I question how much bandwidth this sucks up on their end, and how the economics of it work out, but because of the tracks provided, I bought my first CD in several years (I watch TV and play video games instead of listen to the radio or CDs, typically). And I can't find Nuclearblast (the label's) name on this list, so no guilt on my end.
Also, I just helped someone out with buzzword bingo in that second paragraph. Oh, well.
Alfred Loomis, "one of the most powerful men on Wall Street in the 1920's, a brilliant physicist, inventor of RADAR, LORAN, and the man who kicked off the race to build the atom bomb."
Alfred Loomis? Are you sure that's not Ron Popeil?
So, if I want to get away from the Killer Bees, my best bet is to hop on the Segway; or get the crocodile to eat the Killer Bees, but then I'll just have a crocodile with bees in its mouth, and when it croaks it will shoot bees at me... But when it comes to the lava flow, I'm better off taking to me feet and running away. But for the tyrannosaurus, I'll just hope I can outrun the guy next to me.
This is more valuable information than you'd think.
"'At the time, I didn't believe I was going to get caught. I looked at it as very benign and trivial and more of a pain in the butt,' he said. 'When they started to enact federal laws against computer hacking I continued in that mindset' without realizing the seriousness of the activity and its potential consequences.'" - Kevin Mitnick, paragraph 14
So, from what I can tell, no, he didn't consider or wasn't aware of the risks he was taking; but this paragraph is repeating the last one.
I spent a lot of my childhood playing with Legos, and the time I wasn't spending playing with Legos, I was playing with computers.
Anyway, to the point, during middle school, one of my projects was to build simple robots and control systems, using Legos and an Apple][e. It's been quite a few years, so I barely remember the details, but one of them drove around, another one acted as a motion sensor; the most complex one undertook a series of actions when the motion sensor was triggered, so it was nothing extraordinary; but Legos are (or at least were) used in some schools. This was a few years before Technics were even available, I think; so they may have even been the prototype.