It'd be interesting for Adobe to try that tactic, but as they're a public company the whole shareholder thing is going to nip that in the bud. There's no way they could pull out of the Apple market without having a significant impact on their bottom line.
No, the geeks at/. are in love with Woz's Apple, everyone else is in love with Steve's Apple.
Unless you're talking about Apple I and II days (let's conveniently forget the Apple///, shall we?) from the Macintosh onwards it's heavily Jobs' Apple. Unless by "Steve's Apple" you actually meant both Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak.
I understand now -- the errors you have made in this discussion are because you don't like war, and this intense dislike causes you to make these mistakes and never own up to them. Thanks for clearing that up.
The post you replied to commented on the downplay of weapons and made no comment on whether or not this was justified. If your point was that this was a massacre, you could have responded with "Who cares about weapons or not? It's a massacre!" Instead you attacked the very idea that weapons were present at all rather than talking about what you now claim is your point. And you still now don't even admit weapons and you use a weasel phrase "even IF I was incorrect". Interesting.
This thread isn't about the van. It's about your inability to see weapons in the video. Specifically, your quote: "There was nothing in any of that video that looked remotely like a weapon. How about you show us those frames, hmmmm? Sorry, Mr. Propaganda Officer, your bullshit won't fly here." Evidence has now been posted of the frames in question which clearly show weapons. Will you admit that you were wrong in your assessment of the video and that you are now able to see weapons? Try doing so without changing the subject.
Claiming that one personally knows people who went to war and are fine does not imply that nobody ever suffers problems. Try taking a break from grinding that ax for a while.
What's interesting is the description of the men in the van as "military aged males". That description would apply to any ambulance worker, firefighter, construction worker, and so on.
The military investigation that followed this event found that there were no AK-47s and no RPGs, just cameras with long lenses.
As was pointed out at 3:45 - 3:46 in the short video and a capture posted by another person: http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg -- that's either an RPG or a collapsed tripod with a conical camera on top.
Depends. My Dad had a story about how he bought a VCR from a slightly shady place about 20 years ago. When he plugged it in, it didn't work. He took it back for a refund, and they wouldn't take it. He called AMEX from a payphone and told them the story, and the rep told them "take it inside and try to return it again. If they don't take it, leave it on the counter and leave".
He got his chargeback. So it's not necessarily fraud. But the GP makes it sound like it.
If the AMEX dude had told him to acquire a working VCR from a second honest merchant and return the defective one from the shady merchant to the second honest merchant, it would be fraud. What you described is different than what is being discussed here.
Except that's not even close to how retail works. Look into it. Sony will not be taking those back, ever.
You're sure? Why is it that many products you purchase state in the manual "Do not take back to the retailer if you have a problem. Call us first!" Why would the manufacturer go to their expense trying to fix your problem if the retail store eats the loss and the manufacturer doesn't have to spend a dime?
I've returned products at various stores and have had the cashier specifically state that they send defective products back to the manufacturer. Why would they do that if not to get credit?
I'm genuinely curious if you have information on how the relationship between retailer and manufacturer generally works with respect to returning merchandise. Specifically for larger retailers who have clout in the marketplace.
Microsoft was able to find such a large number of bugs in Office 2010 by using not only machines in the company's labs, but also under-utilitized or idle PCs throughout the company. The concept isn't new: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI@home) project may have been the first to popularize the practice, and remains the largest, but it's also been used to crunch numbers in medical research and to find the world's largest prime number.
"We call it a botnet for fuzzing," said Gallagher, referring to what Microsoft has formally dubbed Distributed Fuzzing Framework (DFF). The fuzzing network originated with work by David Conger, a software design engineer on the Access team.
Odd that they would call it that publicly, given the negative connotation of the word. I would have called it "fuzzy clouds grid computing" or something like that.
I did a double-take to check that it wasn't either a World of Warcraft clone or expansion. From the website graphic design to the gameplay video, it's not hard to guess where their inspiration came from.
It's distributed because all these people violating copyright laws are clamoring to have justice served against them? Interesting theory that the enforcement of laws against people violating them constitute a DDOS.
I want to know how they can get a users name when they only have the IP address. I was assuming that ISPs don't just hand over that info. Am I missing something?
Lawyer appears before the court saying to judge: "We have evidence to believe an individual at this IP address, owned by this ISP, has committed a criminal act. We request that you issue a court order demanding the ISP reveal the individual using that IP address at the time the offence was committed."
Judge: "Looks reasonable enough to me, here you go."
Lawyer then takes the court order to the ISP.
ISP: "Well, looks like we're being ordered to do this and failure to comply with this court order would be contempt of court, so here you go Mr. Lawyer."
Now, some ISPs have no backbone and will provide a subscriber's name without a court order, but the above is generally how it's done.
Problem is, $750 (minimum) for one movie or song is reasonable. 750x1000 songs (or $750,000) is not reasonable. Can you think of a better idea? I'd love to hear it, personally.
Here's a good formula for a fine structure for copyright infringement without monetary gain:
A common usage of the word "take" is "to acquire". Implying that the only definition of "take" is "to remove a physical copy of" is archaic. The post you replied to did not mention "stealing", so the use of "take" is open for interpretation.
Now if the trolls would take a hike, I need to take a dump right after I take my temperature (it only takes a minute) in case I've taken ill and need to take care of myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Xiaodong Li, lead researcher on the project...
They still make bullets out of lead?
It'd be interesting for Adobe to try that tactic, but as they're a public company the whole shareholder thing is going to nip that in the bud. There's no way they could pull out of the Apple market without having a significant impact on their bottom line.
No, the geeks at /. are in love with Woz's Apple, everyone else is in love with Steve's Apple.
Unless you're talking about Apple I and II days (let's conveniently forget the Apple ///, shall we?) from the Macintosh onwards it's heavily Jobs' Apple. Unless by "Steve's Apple" you actually meant both Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak.
It's okay, cupcake. I no longer expect decent reading comprehension from you so enjoy your little tirade, pumpkin!
Go ahead and argue against THAT point if you feel like it, I'm done with the weapons/no weapons sideshow, okay?
Then we're done here. :)
I understand now -- the errors you have made in this discussion are because you don't like war, and this intense dislike causes you to make these mistakes and never own up to them. Thanks for clearing that up.
The post you replied to commented on the downplay of weapons and made no comment on whether or not this was justified. If your point was that this was a massacre, you could have responded with "Who cares about weapons or not? It's a massacre!" Instead you attacked the very idea that weapons were present at all rather than talking about what you now claim is your point. And you still now don't even admit weapons and you use a weasel phrase "even IF I was incorrect". Interesting.
What about the attack on the van, then?
This thread isn't about the van. It's about your inability to see weapons in the video. Specifically, your quote: "There was nothing in any of that video that looked remotely like a weapon. How about you show us those frames, hmmmm? Sorry, Mr. Propaganda Officer, your bullshit won't fly here." Evidence has now been posted of the frames in question which clearly show weapons. Will you admit that you were wrong in your assessment of the video and that you are now able to see weapons? Try doing so without changing the subject.
Claiming that one personally knows people who went to war and are fine does not imply that nobody ever suffers problems. Try taking a break from grinding that ax for a while.
What's interesting is the description of the men in the van as "military aged males". That description would apply to any ambulance worker, firefighter, construction worker, and so on.
The military investigation that followed this event found that there were no AK-47s and no RPGs, just cameras with long lenses.
As was pointed out at 3:45 - 3:46 in the short video and a capture posted by another person: http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg -- that's either an RPG or a collapsed tripod with a conical camera on top.
Depends. My Dad had a story about how he bought a VCR from a slightly shady place about 20 years ago. When he plugged it in, it didn't work. He took it back for a refund, and they wouldn't take it. He called AMEX from a payphone and told them the story, and the rep told them "take it inside and try to return it again. If they don't take it, leave it on the counter and leave".
He got his chargeback. So it's not necessarily fraud. But the GP makes it sound like it.
If the AMEX dude had told him to acquire a working VCR from a second honest merchant and return the defective one from the shady merchant to the second honest merchant, it would be fraud. What you described is different than what is being discussed here.
Except that's not even close to how retail works. Look into it. Sony will not be taking those back, ever.
You're sure? Why is it that many products you purchase state in the manual "Do not take back to the retailer if you have a problem. Call us first!" Why would the manufacturer go to their expense trying to fix your problem if the retail store eats the loss and the manufacturer doesn't have to spend a dime?
I've returned products at various stores and have had the cashier specifically state that they send defective products back to the manufacturer. Why would they do that if not to get credit?
I'm genuinely curious if you have information on how the relationship between retailer and manufacturer generally works with respect to returning merchandise. Specifically for larger retailers who have clout in the marketplace.
It puts the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it's told.
Do you get free meals at restaurants because they don't want to give you a second bill?
They could name it Ford Prefect, but a more suitable name would be Fold Perfect.
FTFA:
Microsoft was able to find such a large number of bugs in Office 2010 by using not only machines in the company's labs, but also under-utilitized or idle PCs throughout the company. The concept isn't new: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI@home) project may have been the first to popularize the practice, and remains the largest, but it's also been used to crunch numbers in medical research and to find the world's largest prime number.
"We call it a botnet for fuzzing," said Gallagher, referring to what Microsoft has formally dubbed Distributed Fuzzing Framework (DFF). The fuzzing network originated with work by David Conger, a software design engineer on the Access team.
Odd that they would call it that publicly, given the negative connotation of the word. I would have called it "fuzzy clouds grid computing" or something like that.
How about this? Instead of the original phrase:
Last time I checked, there is neither a moral nor legal right to simply take what is not yours.
How about this:
"Last time I checked, there is neither a moral nor legal right to simply take a picture of someone without their permission."
That's just my take on it. And I could be wrong... if so, I take that back.
I did a double-take to check that it wasn't either a World of Warcraft clone or expansion. From the website graphic design to the gameplay video, it's not hard to guess where their inspiration came from.
bought it to support them, played a while but stopped for 6 months since it was too unbalanced and not buggy enough to warrant beta testing
So, although it was unbalanced, the game was too bug-free for your liking?
just came back to it a few days ago. The game has progressed a lot...
I take it they introduced sufficient bugs that you now consider it buggy enough?
Do the frames between windows of a car also drive you insane? Likewise when you wear glasses?
Those are all on the periphery of your vision. Would you wear glasses that had an opaque cross on the lens centered directly over your iris?
Looks like a DDOS on the justice system.
It's distributed because all these people violating copyright laws are clamoring to have justice served against them? Interesting theory that the enforcement of laws against people violating them constitute a DDOS.
I want to know how they can get a users name when they only have the IP address. I was assuming that ISPs don't just hand over that info. Am I missing something?
Lawyer appears before the court saying to judge: "We have evidence to believe an individual at this IP address, owned by this ISP, has committed a criminal act. We request that you issue a court order demanding the ISP reveal the individual using that IP address at the time the offence was committed."
Judge: "Looks reasonable enough to me, here you go."
Lawyer then takes the court order to the ISP.
ISP: "Well, looks like we're being ordered to do this and failure to comply with this court order would be contempt of court, so here you go Mr. Lawyer."
Now, some ISPs have no backbone and will provide a subscriber's name without a court order, but the above is generally how it's done.
Problem is, $750 (minimum) for one movie or song is reasonable. 750x1000 songs (or $750,000) is not reasonable. Can you think of a better idea? I'd love to hear it, personally.
Here's a good formula for a fine structure for copyright infringement without monetary gain:
$750 * (1 + ln(x)^2)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot%5B750+*+(1+%2B+Log%5Bx%5D^2%29%2C+{x%2C+1%2C+100}]
Making one copy is $750, making 10 copies is about $4700, and making 100 copies is about $16,000. The per-copy fine goes down as the volume goes up.
A common usage of the word "take" is "to acquire". Implying that the only definition of "take" is "to remove a physical copy of" is archaic. The post you replied to did not mention "stealing", so the use of "take" is open for interpretation.
Now if the trolls would take a hike, I need to take a dump right after I take my temperature (it only takes a minute) in case I've taken ill and need to take care of myself.