They'd better be sure to comb over everything to make sure it's accurate. I've come across several inaccurate articles on Wikipedia, on things from "rape" to "Metallica." But it will really be fun to have an offline copy of Wikipedia. Imagine being on a long trip and having nothing else to do--it's almost like having a summarized Internet at your fingertips. I have to admit it's really fun looking up random Wikipedia entries.
By the way, anyone remember the June 2003 Slashdot IRC interview? "Wiki is silly. Not scalable." -- CmdrTaco. Six months later, Wikipedia surpassed Slashdot's traffic.:)
Yeah, after all, Democrats have no experience with double-standards or speaking out against things they later happily accept.
Come on. Your post is rather biased. "The new(?) Republican thing?" You and I both know I could post as long a list of Democrat hypocrisy as you could of Republican hypocrisy. Welcome to politics; it sucks.
Just take a look at this, which, as you'll notice, isn't getting any mention in the media, because it's GOP-bashing season right now (well, all the time really). If it was claimed to be a Democratic memo, the media would be describing it as a Republican "Rove-esque" trick. Remember the Democratic memo during the election which talked about claiming voter fraud even when there were no claims of it? CNN, CBS, and the major newspapers completely ignored it...but they jumped on this. It's funny how that works, isn't it?
One of my favorite amusements is listening to people bitch and bitch about the hypocrisy of the other side as though their side doesn't take part in the same kind of crap every single day!
So, you're saying they took an instance of PearPC that the PearPC authors no longer have?
It seems that only piracy isn't theft. Anything else, especially if it involves GPL code, is evil thievery around here. It invalidates everybody's position on piracy. Think before you post!
That's true; the topic of ripping your puchased content is an issue of copy protection, as opposed to the issue of distribution.
Interestingly, if MGM is admitting that users are within their rights to rip content and store it, does it not have major implications for copy-protection schemes on physical discs? Could someone use MGM's words against them in the future?
If the online databases are incomplete, why are the paper-based archives being destroyed? Mismanagement? The article doesn't get into the details, so I'm left to ponder the stupidity of it.
Meanwhile, the pointy-haired bosses watched the legal maneuverings and saw Linux as an unsafe choice surrounded by lawsuits because of a code submission process that didn't appear to have any sort of source validation. Linus even said he doesn't pay attention to it.
Regardless of the truth behind it all, for the pointy-haired boss, suddenly the mainstream guys seem like the safer decision. I wouldn't want the OS my company depends on to be in the news for two years as its source code was questioned.
This is exactly what we do. My company provides several OSS backends, and we charge for setting it up for people, providing support, and generally being on-call for any questions clients may have. It's worked very well so far, and since all of our dev tools and operating systems are free of charge, all we're spending is our time.
According to you Slashdotters, it is. Remember? Windows is supposed to be insecure because IE is so tied into the system.
So which is it? Is it tied in, or were they lying?
I'm just saying. I don't think you people really think through your opinions beyond emotive reasoning. It's unbecoming for guys who are supposed to be so technically adept and logical in their thinking. Slashdot is rather emotion-based, no different than an AOL chatroom.
On a Slashdot front page that posted three Mozilla vulnerabilities and an outright root exploit in the very Linux kernel itself, people will continue to pretend Linux and Mozilla are perfect and that Windows is the only operating system with security flaws.
These stories will quickly be forgotten and ignoring amidst the groupthink in the echo chamber, and anyone who disagrees will get modbombed by trolls.
What editorial duties do they really follow through on? They pick flamebait/controversial article submitted by readers and post them regardless of duplicity or typographical error, and then go collect their OSTG paychecks.
Malda and company should stick to coding the backend and hire actual content editors to post the stories to the front page. Think of how much the quality of Slashdot would shoot up, particularly in the accuracy department. Right now, the readers of Slashdot are doing all the work.
Slashdot reveals the inaccuracy of its reporting
on
Sir Peter Molyneux?
·
· Score: 0, Informative
First, the Queen doesn't hand them out.
Second, he's NOT being knighted.
Does the idea of fact-checking anything even itch its way across the editors' minds?
The current rumor is a new office suite to replaced the incredibly dated Apple Works and incredibly bloated and slow MS Office.
Thank you, Taco, for telling me how to feel about MS Office!
For Taco to call Office "incredibly bloated and slow" when it takes up less space, loads up WAY faster than OpenOffice, and does much more, reveals Taco's incredible bias. I can judge MS Office for myself, thank you.
The people who cheer when the RIAA website gets hacked are upset when they fight back.
With services like iTunes, all the old reasons to pirate music are dead. People need to face facts, that people pirate because they just don't want to pay for stuff, not some "culture revolution" against the big, bad companies who dared to protect themselves.
I have yet to see a valid legal or moral justification for piracy. Anyone care to provide one? I'm genuinely open to being convinced. I just find it amusing that the artists are never brought up in these discussions. Seems to me they should be the biggets factor of all. I think it's because people don't like mentioning them since they know they're ripping them off...and pirates don't like being made to feel guilty about anything. Hence portraying the RIAA/MPAA as "evil corporations" when all they're doing is going after illegal downloaders. If you're not an illegal downloader infringing on their copyright, why should you care?
Remember, people seem to LOVE copyright in the GPL "source theft" articles. Would you agree if someone stole GPL code? If not, then why is P2P piracy okay?
Hysterical. Shutting down networks giving people the ability to easily pirate your materials is now "censorship?" What valuable free speech are tracker sites providing other than giving pirates easy clickable links to pirate stuff?
In reality, it has nothing to do with ideals about censorship. That's just a ruse invented to cloud the real root cause--people want to protect the websites that let them freeload stuff without having to pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not about free speech or fighting back against invented enemies like the RIAA. It's just basic thievery and wanting to get stuff for free because you can, without regard for the people making the content (notice how those poor saps are never, ever mentioned in these discussions?).
My impression is that the IE code mostly does not.
Oh, gee, your impression? Well, hey, that proves it.
In SP2, they recompiled all system libraries, including IE, using the VS2005 compiler with overflow detection. SP2 is also a result of the code audit they underwent. Has Mozilla done a code audit?
Well, if they hate DRM, then they won't watch the DRM content. Since Windows Media Center isn't the one applying the DRM--it just happens to play DRM content as well as all the non-DRM content Windows already plays--it's silly to blame Windows Media Center for the DRM that content providers are including, not Microsoft. You can still watch your warez Kazaa DivX movies that you didn't pay for.
Let us spew as much anti-DRM propaganda as we can to protect freeloading P2P piracy. We'll never let those bastard copyright holders who own their content win. We OWN their content! Viva la revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd better be sure to comb over everything to make sure it's accurate. I've come across several inaccurate articles on Wikipedia, on things from "rape" to "Metallica." But it will really be fun to have an offline copy of Wikipedia. Imagine being on a long trip and having nothing else to do--it's almost like having a summarized Internet at your fingertips. I have to admit it's really fun looking up random Wikipedia entries.
:)
By the way, anyone remember the June 2003 Slashdot IRC interview? "Wiki is silly. Not scalable." -- CmdrTaco. Six months later, Wikipedia surpassed Slashdot's traffic.
I thought what most people will think on seeing this headline. NASA's secret stash? Astronauts really are getting high these days.
Yeah, after all, Democrats have no experience with double-standards or speaking out against things they later happily accept.
Come on. Your post is rather biased. "The new(?) Republican thing?" You and I both know I could post as long a list of Democrat hypocrisy as you could of Republican hypocrisy. Welcome to politics; it sucks.
Just take a look at this, which, as you'll notice, isn't getting any mention in the media, because it's GOP-bashing season right now (well, all the time really). If it was claimed to be a Democratic memo, the media would be describing it as a Republican "Rove-esque" trick. Remember the Democratic memo during the election which talked about claiming voter fraud even when there were no claims of it? CNN, CBS, and the major newspapers completely ignored it...but they jumped on this. It's funny how that works, isn't it?
One of my favorite amusements is listening to people bitch and bitch about the hypocrisy of the other side as though their side doesn't take part in the same kind of crap every single day!
They plainly stole PearPC
So, you're saying they took an instance of PearPC that the PearPC authors no longer have?
It seems that only piracy isn't theft. Anything else, especially if it involves GPL code, is evil thievery around here. It invalidates everybody's position on piracy. Think before you post!
That's true; the topic of ripping your puchased content is an issue of copy protection, as opposed to the issue of distribution.
Interestingly, if MGM is admitting that users are within their rights to rip content and store it, does it not have major implications for copy-protection schemes on physical discs? Could someone use MGM's words against them in the future?
If the online databases are incomplete, why are the paper-based archives being destroyed? Mismanagement? The article doesn't get into the details, so I'm left to ponder the stupidity of it.
What are the bets there will be a long series of Apple prank stories now to piss off all the "Slashdot posts too many stories about Apple!" trolls?
Hardly. Why do you think all that blue and plastic crap was suddenly grafted onto Windows XP a year after Aqua was revealed to the public?
It was the magic gnomes unleashed from Linus Torvalds' lair. Evil communist OSS strikes again! TORRVVAALLDDSS!!!
Apple's birthday is April 1, 1976. Apple will be 29.
On a related note, the "Missing Manual, Tiger Edition" is scheduled for release in April, as is O'Reilly's "Learning Unix for Mac OS X Tiger" book.
Meanwhile, the pointy-haired bosses watched the legal maneuverings and saw Linux as an unsafe choice surrounded by lawsuits because of a code submission process that didn't appear to have any sort of source validation. Linus even said he doesn't pay attention to it.
Regardless of the truth behind it all, for the pointy-haired boss, suddenly the mainstream guys seem like the safer decision. I wouldn't want the OS my company depends on to be in the news for two years as its source code was questioned.
It doesn't prove anything. Bad publicity is not always good publicity--that adage is a false adage. People could cite endless examples to prove such.
Unless it's going after grandma and 12-year-old girls. Then it's called "perverted."
This is exactly what we do. My company provides several OSS backends, and we charge for setting it up for people, providing support, and generally being on-call for any questions clients may have. It's worked very well so far, and since all of our dev tools and operating systems are free of charge, all we're spending is our time.
According to you Slashdotters, it is. Remember? Windows is supposed to be insecure because IE is so tied into the system.
So which is it? Is it tied in, or were they lying?
I'm just saying. I don't think you people really think through your opinions beyond emotive reasoning. It's unbecoming for guys who are supposed to be so technically adept and logical in their thinking. Slashdot is rather emotion-based, no different than an AOL chatroom.
On a Slashdot front page that posted three Mozilla vulnerabilities and an outright root exploit in the very Linux kernel itself, people will continue to pretend Linux and Mozilla are perfect and that Windows is the only operating system with security flaws.
These stories will quickly be forgotten and ignoring amidst the groupthink in the echo chamber, and anyone who disagrees will get modbombed by trolls.
What editorial duties do they really follow through on? They pick flamebait/controversial article submitted by readers and post them regardless of duplicity or typographical error, and then go collect their OSTG paychecks.
Malda and company should stick to coding the backend and hire actual content editors to post the stories to the front page. Think of how much the quality of Slashdot would shoot up, particularly in the accuracy department. Right now, the readers of Slashdot are doing all the work.
First, the Queen doesn't hand them out.
Second, he's NOT being knighted.
Does the idea of fact-checking anything even itch its way across the editors' minds?
The current rumor is a new office suite to replaced the incredibly dated Apple Works and incredibly bloated and slow MS Office.
Thank you, Taco, for telling me how to feel about MS Office!
For Taco to call Office "incredibly bloated and slow" when it takes up less space, loads up WAY faster than OpenOffice, and does much more, reveals Taco's incredible bias. I can judge MS Office for myself, thank you.
The people who cheer when the RIAA website gets hacked are upset when they fight back.
With services like iTunes, all the old reasons to pirate music are dead. People need to face facts, that people pirate because they just don't want to pay for stuff, not some "culture revolution" against the big, bad companies who dared to protect themselves.
I have yet to see a valid legal or moral justification for piracy. Anyone care to provide one? I'm genuinely open to being convinced. I just find it amusing that the artists are never brought up in these discussions. Seems to me they should be the biggets factor of all. I think it's because people don't like mentioning them since they know they're ripping them off...and pirates don't like being made to feel guilty about anything. Hence portraying the RIAA/MPAA as "evil corporations" when all they're doing is going after illegal downloaders. If you're not an illegal downloader infringing on their copyright, why should you care?
Remember, people seem to LOVE copyright in the GPL "source theft" articles. Would you agree if someone stole GPL code? If not, then why is P2P piracy okay?
Hysterical. Shutting down networks giving people the ability to easily pirate your materials is now "censorship?" What valuable free speech are tracker sites providing other than giving pirates easy clickable links to pirate stuff?
In reality, it has nothing to do with ideals about censorship. That's just a ruse invented to cloud the real root cause--people want to protect the websites that let them freeload stuff without having to pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not about free speech or fighting back against invented enemies like the RIAA. It's just basic thievery and wanting to get stuff for free because you can, without regard for the people making the content (notice how those poor saps are never, ever mentioned in these discussions?).
My impression is that the IE code mostly does not.
Oh, gee, your impression? Well, hey, that proves it.
In SP2, they recompiled all system libraries, including IE, using the VS2005 compiler with overflow detection. SP2 is also a result of the code audit they underwent. Has Mozilla done a code audit?
Well, if they hate DRM, then they won't watch the DRM content. Since Windows Media Center isn't the one applying the DRM--it just happens to play DRM content as well as all the non-DRM content Windows already plays--it's silly to blame Windows Media Center for the DRM that content providers are including, not Microsoft. You can still watch your warez Kazaa DivX movies that you didn't pay for.
Let us spew as much anti-DRM propaganda as we can to protect freeloading P2P piracy. We'll never let those bastard copyright holders who own their content win. We OWN their content! Viva la revolution.
Thank for illustrating that the vast majority of OSS and its followers are really an organized religion. Think about it.