That out of the way, the commentary in the header is completely untrue. The flag is not required in order for a tape to be read. It is required that it can be read by the player, not that it HAS to exist. Old VCR tapes will work fine. New VCR tapes will work fine, as long as you don't try to play something that has a flag that says "don't play". That's it. Any questions?
I run quite a few websites. I use quite a few websites that don't have banner ads. The point here is that it ISN'T the only way to make money. And the arguement that I am using their bandwidth? I'm using my bandwith to download the site in the first place. If I don't like it, I'm not going to return. Why should I pay for the privilege to find out? I've already stated that blocking ads from site you use isn't a good idea, and that I don't do it. But if I just happen across a site, then I don't really care if they don't make money from the one and only hit they are ever going to get from me. And why should I? As I said - I run quite a few websites, and I don't expect to make money from ads. The few clients I have that do use ads consider it an easy way to make money, but they don't rely on it, and neither should anyone else. If you, or any of these other web admins are expecting to support yourself with ads, then you are making the same mistake the RIAA is - adapt or die. I have no sympathy for people who try to hold on to their business model in the face of the needs of the users. If the users choose to not support your business, then you need to change your business, not force your users to change their minds. You obviously do not understand the history of the internet, and how it has been used to by the average user. You don't understand the point of having a global medium where anyone can setup their own content server and post just about any content they want. You are clearly clueless on the history, and the real purpose of the Internet. Please think twice when (or if) you respond to this post. Maybe you need to rethink your parameters on this.
And how is it that being able to choose to block ads is not "control by the people"? I hate Gator. It fits your profile, and is, in many ways, contemptious and destructive towards us. This is wrong, and some of the actions their software takes are arguably illegal. As for the money side of websites - well, there are certainly more choices than you are presenting. As for the webmaster getting screwed? I don't really care. I don't go to people's websites and read their stuff if they expect me to pay for it, unless I actually am planning on paying for it. If that means allowing banner ads, so be it. But don't tell me that I am screwing webmasters because I view their piddly little website and don't download their ads. That's just silly.
And what, in all hell, do you think the Internet is for? I mean, if the Internet is all about advertising, fine, I see your point. But if it is about communication, then what are you talking about?
1. Most everything listed could fit into the implant that was listed - I like this one;
2. Wormholes for communications & travel
3. Anti-gravity
4. Moving manufacturer to orbit
5. Terraforming
6. Unlimited & safe energy source
Why didn't I see Kazaa mentioned anywhere? I've cleaned out so many "additional" programs that "came with" Kazaa on my family & friend's machines that I can't even count them on all of our fingers and toes combined.
Focusing all of our efforts on increasing research is not the best move. Bush advocates a joint effort - securing our current energy sources, and funding research and development for new energy sources, such as hydrogen fuel cells. I agree that this isn't being mixed as well as it should be, but that is Bush's STATED goal. Those advocating ignoring our current sources are foolish, however - every report that I've read recently says we are still 5 to 10 years away from being able to rely on any source that could replace our current oil-based sources. Please consider this when reading further articles advocated this strategy.
This article is about as well considered as Ballmer's - showing "proof" that doesn't correspond to the evidence doesn't help. Look, Groklaw is right, Bawlmore is wrong, but this article certainly doesn't help prove it. ALWAYS TAKE THE DAMN HIGH ROAD ON THESE THINGS PEOPLE.
Anyone want to provide some links that call this election an "upset"? I mean, I'd like to look at them to see what kind of reasoning is used to call this an upset. The only type of upset that is valid in an election like this (in my humble, but correct opinion), is when the polls (multiple polls, notice, from multiple sources) show that one candidate is winning handily, and then the actual vote turns drastically in the other directions. These polls must have been conducted shortly before the election without any sort of "big press release" type event that would easily point to a changing of minds...
What I hate most about this article...
on
Trusted Computing
·
· Score: 1
Is that it is SOOO compelling! I even find myself going "would that be so bad?" before I shake myself out of it. I wasn't too worried about this stuff before - now I am, and so should you. Good job writing this monster, now how do we counter it?
Wow - you must have had to work pretty hard to come up with that. I clearly stated facts, and while there were alternate word choices (making my choices "spin", technically), your interpretation has little or no relation to my post. Jeesh.
The current laws on the books state the no student is required to recite the pledge. It does not state that the schools cannot set aside time to recite the pledge. Please be careful to not add any more spin to an already charged issue.
Does anyone here have ANY idea about how happy Microsoft is about Mono? Does anyone here know why? It isn't because "Now we have a tool hanging over Linux's head that can bring everything down!". No, stupid-heads, it is because it means that their monopoly is being extended without them spending ANY money! People are using Microsoft technology on non-Microsoft operating systems! That's great for Microsoft! Exposure, marketing, public opinion, portability! There are PLENTY of reasons that Microsoft would want Mono to succeed, and they don't need to include our little fears and scares - they aren't bad for us... so get over yourselves, and take a closer look at the big picture here...
Who the hell uses this shit anyway? You'd have to be an idiot to choose Kazaa from among the other choices out there - why would you want to use software from a company that knowingly installs malware & snoopware on your machine? Kazaa is crap.
This is not correct. Again, according to what I've read (see the previously mentioned book for an example), nothing moves faster than light. General relativity specifically states this. Einstein specifically states this. If you'd like to argue your point, please provide a credible reference. Mine is the previously referenced book. I can get more if I need to, but I'd rather not spend the time, since so far, you haven't. Thanks!
It is an accepted scientific "fact" that nothing (and I mean nothing, in NO circumstances), can travel faster than light. It HAS been suggested that the speed of light is changing, however. And THAT is the real answer.
You say we should look at past behavoir - I am. That's why I'm wondering if we shouldn't give Intuit a break. They have a history of making good choices, and being customer oriented. And firing people who make bad decisions? Well, damn, that's just silly. No one I know would have a good job, and I'm relatively sure that includes you. A pattern of bad decisions would require termination, sure, but this isn't a pattern - this is one event.
And damn me for get stuck in an advocate position (instead of the "think about it before judging" position I tried to start in) - you made two other false statements:
1) Intuit most certainly warned their customers that they were installing the protections they installed. I read the notice (that was one the box, in the license agreement, and in the setup), and I decided to install it on a trash box instead. Many people don't have that luxury, but hell, what can I say? The decision to do this was very bad, but it wasn't the crime of the century, and it sure ain't something that cannot be forgiven;
2) It cost them $90M? I don't think so. I've seen figures like this associated with their decision, but I also looked into how they compiled their figures, and they are almost as accurate as some of the damages I've seen levied against hackers. $90M is a ridiculous figure.
Shouldn't we reward that? I mean, has "TaxCut" promised not to do idiotic things like this? Is it impossible to forgive an organization that makes mistakes? Why do we seem to have double-standards on these things? Is it cynicism, or stupidity?
1) Yay! Microsoft is not planning on updating their browser, allowing their competition to leap ahead. This is a good thing! We should be celebrating!
2) The article on security holes? Please read it carefully. The summary in the header is absolutely incorrect - this article doesn't pretend that there are 30-40 know security holes in I.E. right now, nor does it make any sort of compelling case that MS isn't plugging those holes correctly. It is sad, actually - the writer obviously slept through the whole "gather your facts, present them objectively" part of their journalism classes....
Slashdot Mirror
First of all - I don't agree with this ruling.
That out of the way, the commentary in the header is completely untrue. The flag is not required in order for a tape to be read. It is required that it can be read by the player, not that it HAS to exist. Old VCR tapes will work fine. New VCR tapes will work fine, as long as you don't try to play something that has a flag that says "don't play". That's it. Any questions?
I run quite a few websites. I use quite a few websites that don't have banner ads. The point here is that it ISN'T the only way to make money. And the arguement that I am using their bandwidth? I'm using my bandwith to download the site in the first place. If I don't like it, I'm not going to return. Why should I pay for the privilege to find out? I've already stated that blocking ads from site you use isn't a good idea, and that I don't do it. But if I just happen across a site, then I don't really care if they don't make money from the one and only hit they are ever going to get from me. And why should I? As I said - I run quite a few websites, and I don't expect to make money from ads. The few clients I have that do use ads consider it an easy way to make money, but they don't rely on it, and neither should anyone else. If you, or any of these other web admins are expecting to support yourself with ads, then you are making the same mistake the RIAA is - adapt or die. I have no sympathy for people who try to hold on to their business model in the face of the needs of the users. If the users choose to not support your business, then you need to change your business, not force your users to change their minds. You obviously do not understand the history of the internet, and how it has been used to by the average user. You don't understand the point of having a global medium where anyone can setup their own content server and post just about any content they want. You are clearly clueless on the history, and the real purpose of the Internet. Please think twice when (or if) you respond to this post. Maybe you need to rethink your parameters on this.
And how is it that being able to choose to block ads is not "control by the people"? I hate Gator. It fits your profile, and is, in many ways, contemptious and destructive towards us. This is wrong, and some of the actions their software takes are arguably illegal. As for the money side of websites - well, there are certainly more choices than you are presenting. As for the webmaster getting screwed? I don't really care. I don't go to people's websites and read their stuff if they expect me to pay for it, unless I actually am planning on paying for it. If that means allowing banner ads, so be it. But don't tell me that I am screwing webmasters because I view their piddly little website and don't download their ads. That's just silly.
And what, in all hell, do you think the Internet is for? I mean, if the Internet is all about advertising, fine, I see your point. But if it is about communication, then what are you talking about?
The answer to this is pretty darn clear. Why do you ask?
1. Most everything listed could fit into the implant that was listed - I like this one;
2. Wormholes for communications & travel
3. Anti-gravity
4. Moving manufacturer to orbit
5. Terraforming
6. Unlimited & safe energy source
Aren't these the basics? Am I missing anything?
Why didn't I see Kazaa mentioned anywhere? I've cleaned out so many "additional" programs that "came with" Kazaa on my family & friend's machines that I can't even count them on all of our fingers and toes combined.
I recommend you hire a half-decent lawyer and sue AOL.
Focusing all of our efforts on increasing research is not the best move. Bush advocates a joint effort - securing our current energy sources, and funding research and development for new energy sources, such as hydrogen fuel cells. I agree that this isn't being mixed as well as it should be, but that is Bush's STATED goal. Those advocating ignoring our current sources are foolish, however - every report that I've read recently says we are still 5 to 10 years away from being able to rely on any source that could replace our current oil-based sources. Please consider this when reading further articles advocated this strategy.
This article is about as well considered as Ballmer's - showing "proof" that doesn't correspond to the evidence doesn't help. Look, Groklaw is right, Bawlmore is wrong, but this article certainly doesn't help prove it. ALWAYS TAKE THE DAMN HIGH ROAD ON THESE THINGS PEOPLE.
Anyone want to provide some links that call this election an "upset"? I mean, I'd like to look at them to see what kind of reasoning is used to call this an upset. The only type of upset that is valid in an election like this (in my humble, but correct opinion), is when the polls (multiple polls, notice, from multiple sources) show that one candidate is winning handily, and then the actual vote turns drastically in the other directions. These polls must have been conducted shortly before the election without any sort of "big press release" type event that would easily point to a changing of minds...
Is that it is SOOO compelling! I even find myself going "would that be so bad?" before I shake myself out of it. I wasn't too worried about this stuff before - now I am, and so should you. Good job writing this monster, now how do we counter it?
Wow - you must have had to work pretty hard to come up with that. I clearly stated facts, and while there were alternate word choices (making my choices "spin", technically), your interpretation has little or no relation to my post. Jeesh.
The current laws on the books state the no student is required to recite the pledge. It does not state that the schools cannot set aside time to recite the pledge. Please be careful to not add any more spin to an already charged issue.
Does anyone here have ANY idea about how happy Microsoft is about Mono? Does anyone here know why? It isn't because "Now we have a tool hanging over Linux's head that can bring everything down!". No, stupid-heads, it is because it means that their monopoly is being extended without them spending ANY money! People are using Microsoft technology on non-Microsoft operating systems! That's great for Microsoft! Exposure, marketing, public opinion, portability! There are PLENTY of reasons that Microsoft would want Mono to succeed, and they don't need to include our little fears and scares - they aren't bad for us... so get over yourselves, and take a closer look at the big picture here...
Who the hell uses this shit anyway? You'd have to be an idiot to choose Kazaa from among the other choices out there - why would you want to use software from a company that knowingly installs malware & snoopware on your machine? Kazaa is crap.
This is not correct. Again, according to what I've read (see the previously mentioned book for an example), nothing moves faster than light. General relativity specifically states this. Einstein specifically states this. If you'd like to argue your point, please provide a credible reference. Mine is the previously referenced book. I can get more if I need to, but I'd rather not spend the time, since so far, you haven't. Thanks!
Where's the defense fund donation site? And who's donated?
Actually, even objects moving away from each other cannot exceed the speed of light. Here's a good book for trying to understand this:
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene
It is an accepted scientific "fact" that nothing (and I mean nothing, in NO circumstances), can travel faster than light. It HAS been suggested that the speed of light is changing, however. And THAT is the real answer.
You say we should look at past behavoir - I am. That's why I'm wondering if we shouldn't give Intuit a break. They have a history of making good choices, and being customer oriented. And firing people who make bad decisions? Well, damn, that's just silly. No one I know would have a good job, and I'm relatively sure that includes you. A pattern of bad decisions would require termination, sure, but this isn't a pattern - this is one event.
And damn me for get stuck in an advocate position (instead of the "think about it before judging" position I tried to start in) - you made two other false statements:
1) Intuit most certainly warned their customers that they were installing the protections they installed. I read the notice (that was one the box, in the license agreement, and in the setup), and I decided to install it on a trash box instead. Many people don't have that luxury, but hell, what can I say? The decision to do this was very bad, but it wasn't the crime of the century, and it sure ain't something that cannot be forgiven;
2) It cost them $90M? I don't think so. I've seen figures like this associated with their decision, but I also looked into how they compiled their figures, and they are almost as accurate as some of the damages I've seen levied against hackers. $90M is a ridiculous figure.
Shouldn't we reward that? I mean, has "TaxCut" promised not to do idiotic things like this? Is it impossible to forgive an organization that makes mistakes? Why do we seem to have double-standards on these things? Is it cynicism, or stupidity?
This is the best article on the subject I have read to this point - it hits on none of the sore spots, and yet hits on exactly the problem.
1) Yay! Microsoft is not planning on updating their browser, allowing their competition to leap ahead. This is a good thing! We should be celebrating!
2) The article on security holes? Please read it carefully. The summary in the header is absolutely incorrect - this article doesn't pretend that there are 30-40 know security holes in I.E. right now, nor does it make any sort of compelling case that MS isn't plugging those holes correctly. It is sad, actually - the writer obviously slept through the whole "gather your facts, present them objectively" part of their journalism classes....
Hmm, and I thought I was joking? Get the sticks out and join the crowd, boys!
Portland is right next door, and is MUCH more swank! ;)