While the article definately has a Linux vs Windows angle to it (and you have to admit, it's hard to talk about one being deployed without considering the effects the other one may have had, had it been deployed), I'm simply more interested in hearing secretaries extoll the virtues of KDE.
While this issue has been in full-fledged war mode for years, I think *nix proponants such as myself would have far more success focusing on the suitability and usability of KDE and Gnome than always boiling it down to a Xwindows vs Windows debate. Sure, Windows does the job, I run it at home; but if this article proves that End User X, dumb as a post, doesn't mind KDE (I'd use it daily if my audio-apps ran in *nix), force it on em! Well, at least in situations where it's my tax dollar...
Of course, the long term upside is that newbies 'n average users would finally have some variety in their computing experience before they blindly pledge allegience to the only OS they see commercials for; thus helping solidify *nix and KDE/Gnome as a viable platform for the Everyday Joe in the minds of the consumer.
This is like saying that a certain amount of rape is inevitable, so lay back and enjoy it.
No, it's like saying a certain amount of rape does not justify raping the rapists (otherwise we could just allow rapists-to-be to get their jones off raping rapists (of their gender preference of course)). I realize that sometimes we are stuck between a rock and a hard place when dealing with miscreants, but the power to commit acts deemed illegal at the behest of authority leads to corruption - family and friends of those in charge of supervising the counter-rapes would no doubt get first shot, rape harder than the rapist did, longer.. more violently.. pick your poison, but eye-for-eye almost always leads to revenge worse than the original crime, even if it is in the name of authority.
I support community action more than the average individual, but there is a very important distinction here: community action is only warrented when the action is to stem abuse and corruption AND the adversary does not make themselves avaiable to a dialog; and even THEN, only if they refuse to aknowledge that a large enough opposition to their behaviour or ideals should result in change.
I do NOT support community action to fight violence. Why? People are not responsible enough to recognize the difference between revenge and problem resolution. When it comes to the moment when you're smashing the bat over some dissident's head, you're probably not thinking about whether or not said dissident will continue their actions (in this case, continue writing bad viruses), but rather how much the dissident had this coming to them. And since you've lost sight of the goal, no resolution is likely to come from it. Same goes with white hat viruses.. sure, some of the viruses will help fight malicious ones, but after awhile, it will be difficult to tell just who the white and black hats are. Nevermind that the popularization of viruses for the cause of 'good' will start masquerading about for various personal causes; ie, the 'good' virus that only attacks 'hell-bound' porn sites, or 'good' viruses that only attack sites which endorse gay rights. (Well, of course, these types of attacks and viruses already exist, but legitemizing the distribution of viruses would only allow these authors to claim they are writing 'good' viruses.)
All this is notwithstanding the fact that you'd raise awareness of how to write viruses (I'd imagine you could easily publish a book "How to get into an IIS server, and spread.. for good."), nor figure in the cost of 'good' viruses written improperly, and subsequently causing as much damage as the 'bad' viruses they seek to purge.
Unfortunately, mentalities like yours seem to prevail. People lack the tolerance and foresight to see that sometimes the eye-for-eye cure, no matter how self-satisfying, can cause the problem to reach levels of magnitude far beyond that which it would have reached had resolutions be seeked IN OTHER WAYS.
Incidentally, there is someone on our street with cracked windows. Despite this, everyone else seems content to continue to take pride in the appearance of their dwelling; the lawns are mowed, and the flower beds are gorgeous. If the motivation for behaviour was whatever the lowest common demonitor was, we'd have never gotten out of the stone age. I should hope that the sole motivator for maintaining some sense of responsibility, dignity, and self-control is not that others HAVE to do it to. I could list hundreds of examples, from j-walking to litter in which the only reason they havn't reached catasphoric levels is because SOME people take it upon themselves not to contribute to the problem, even if there is little chance of being punished or caught. Even if littering and jwalking were legal, I'm positive a significant portion of the population would continue respecting others' environment and traffic flow.
A please notice I never once suggested we 'lay back and enjoy it', although I suppose drawing judgemental conclusions out of posts has long since become a/. tradition. I'm just saying, there are other ways to fight viruses.. such as forcing a certain software maker to fix the pieces of swiss cheese they call web servers and mail clients, or condemning friends and family for not practicing caution when being online.
what was erased on the infamous Watergate tape that pushed Nixon's downfall over the brink. It would be amazing to have this national mystery put to rest
Actually, I heard the blank spot was just noise introduced by a top-secret CIA funded copy-protection scheme from the era.;)
Hey, at least we got some of the tape! If all this copy-protection shit had been introduced 30 years ago, we wouldn't have the tape AT ALL.
Uh.. whats the problem? That my point is invalid, because I am 'not old enough' to realize as such?
I hate to be the harbringer of bad news, but the older you get, the more out of touch you would be with the behavior of teens, much less the understanding of why that behaviour is occuring in the first place. (Unless you work in marketing or some other function where your primary job is understanding.)
Please explain how being 23 is 'the problem for me', and what I would learn from being older as it relates to this issue. Hell, being 23, I still participate in these cultures, many of which are dominated by 15 yr olds (the gfx scene, the coding scene, the quake scene, the blog scene)... I'm assume you are saying that being older, but likely not as familiar, with these cultures would alter my opinion? Like, duh, but the question is, is the opinion as relevant and informed?
Never once was I claiming I knew more or less than the 15 yr olds Katz was describing.. I don't see how thats related to the issue.
Despite the obvious generalizations we have to make when discussing demographics, I am a firm believer than now, more than ever, are the next generation of adults are filtering their consumption to suit their agnst, social politics, and what have you. Cliques on the net have never been more clearly defined. One needs only read over various blog circles to recognize that each community typically involving young ones has a strict code of conduct, stipulating words, ideas, and what to rebel against. I AM NOT JUDGING whether the ideas and ideals being rebels against are valid. I'm NOT saying 'kids these days.. the world is going to shit'.
Yes, I will probably get flamed for this. I'm sure it will be pointed out that this has always been happening, etc etc.. I just think that now, more than ever, young adults have control over what they see and where they are visitng. 10 years ago, the circles wern't as clearly defined (I personally think because there wasn't as much traffic and money around, so you wern't attempting to sell your image to anyone.), although the same climate obviously existed in some smaller scale.
You'd spawn a war that hasnt escalated so far
on
Fight Virus With Virus?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, there's nothing like a challenge to a virus writer.. so I'll bet if you started spreading a good one, you'd just start escalating the war. Sometimes I believe viruses havn't caused major catastrophes yet because we dont fight viruses with viruses. Think of guns.. since we fight guns with guns, it really ends up coming down to who has the most/biggest guns. Do we really want to find out who has the most time and haxoring genius, the black hats or the white hats?
PointCast.TM., however, is configured only to deliver content to the browser of a computer over the Internet. It is not designed or equipped with the means to download executable programs to a storage device connected to a computer and execute them at the remote computer.
In other words: PointCast does exactly what our thing does, only we instruct the machine (on the clientside) to run the bytes transferred, while PointCast only displayed them.
Definately an invention worthy of lucrative licencing fees! I guess this makes them Mc-A-Fee.
Oh, and:
Those skilled in the art may make numerous modifications and departures from the specific embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed invention.
In other words: This is a blanket patent. Please remember that when we're in litigation with a zillion other companies to obtain royalties.
Incidentally, I'm a programmer who works on C/C++/CORBA enterprise scale distributed apps, and I'd say I never need to use more than grade 10 math. Actually, my friend, who worked for a company that developed complex financial economics simulation software never had to use math; all math was provided by.. guess what.. mathematicians!
Yes, there are obviously some math skills required for programming, but in many many cases (GUI programming, scripting, distributed computing, etc), the math is very simple (object oriented methodology is far more likely to be important coming into a programming job than having to engage in above-high-school level math.) Thus, the argument employers were using, blaming the lack of talent on a lack of math skills seen in domestic potential hires, is clearly false.
Anyhow, if you really felt you could discredit a huge report based on one snarky line, you're a part of the group that doesn't need the system to pull the wool over its eyes.. it's already there!
I know its been said to death, but really, royalties for patent owners for software should be limited to 1 year. Maybe 2. We all know software is pretty much obsolete after around 5 - 10 years. (ie, I'll take a guess that.Net will be around for maybe 10 years, if it's a commercial success.)
So the licencing wouldn't be prohibitive if you knew you only had to pay it for a limited time within the lifetime of the technology. Copyrights are supposed to help the inventor, but open up the forum to royalty-free competition while the invention is still viable and useful. This would foster more participants in the arena of competing technologies, and thus, more innovation. And we wouldn't be wondering if Microsoft ringing the death knell for SAMBA.
All of which is not withstanding the scary idea that developing a technology for 'changing passwords' should not entitle you to more royalty payments than a developer, of a technology which only wants to/talk/ to your software, can afford.
Second, by harnessing the vast power of client-side computing. We take advantage of that 90 percent or more of a typical computer user's CPU that's just sitting there idle, itching to get into the Internet game.
Jebus, don't tell Intel.. their marketing strategy for selling next-generation CPUs is convincing the client that their CPU can't even/handle/ browsing the net!
If you build it, they will multicast
on
HDTV Over IP
·
· Score: 2
Yes yes, this is all very cool, but there has to be consumer demand to fuel this. Considering how long it is taking HDTV to become the norm (if ever), and our propensity to easily eat up whatever bandwidth current technology delivers with inane shit, I would truely be surprised if TV starts coming across the 'net anytime soon (ie, 10 years). Somehow, the media providers would have to slip their foot inside the door to reserve bandwidth on a telco's network before it gets eaten up by consumers? I'm just thinking about the case where the consumers already have the link, and are used to having bandwidth X available.. it'd be a tough sell to start piggybacking HDTV on those connections, and tell your consumer base that their available bandwidth will now be X, to make way for multicast HDTV streams you may not even be interested in.
Actually, I'm more interested in 'friendly off the air' messages in explorer:
"I'm sorry, the TV show you are trying to watch is unavailable. Please hit 'reload', or try again later."
That'd be enough to drive me back to my remote 'n good 'ol cable.
- It happens to so stupidly far in the future
- the sexual innendoes.. man, the show should be required viewing for middle school kids in order to bolster social tolerance!
- its funny
just my two cents.. btw, I believe Lexx was created by Canadians. Can anyone confirm this?
The trouble here is that only your 'illegal' copy could damage your system. Which is your fault, since Sony did not produce the CD, you did. More frightening than the copy-protection technology is the fact that the industry has long since forgone the notion of fair use. This is what we should be livid about... like people who complain about getting a parking ticket. YOU parked there, knowing you would get one.
I don't care if the copy protection scheme makes my stereo taste like a 22oz prime rib steak... I vohemently oppose ANY copy protection scheme. The fact that this one might (/might/) damage your equipment should you exersice 'fair use' of your CDs is secondary to the fact that fair use seems like an old bedtime story that every company out there is desperately trying to forget.
What really scares me is that we're making all this furor over the fact that it damages your stereo. If Sony were to licence a copy-protection scheme that/didn't/ damage your equipment next week, they'd look like heros, and with respect to this case alone, no one would seemingly have anything else to complain about.
Oh wait, except the fact that Sony denies the existance of FAIR USE. Bah.
> Really, yours is the most subtly deceptive reasoning because it infers that a "conspiracy" is required to silence dissident voices. In actuality, the people who write for these publications are only there because they have kissed the right asses. If they were any threat to write something rational or honest they would have been sniffed out long ago and had their access to power stripped from them.
Right on, brother! I only wish more people understood that much of the unacceptable pain, persecution, and general discontent people experience in their lifetimes are the result not of evil-by-choice organizations, but rather evil-by-choice people leading ignorant/obendient-by-choice people. I could not have written it better myself. Give the man a prize!:)
Puuleeeease. I'm talking about the news here, not what airs during prime time on television. The news will always be shown.. I wasn't saying big brother decides what shows to watch, I was saying what big brother decides what headline to run. And yes, sometimes that headline will be chosen because people eat it up (Elian Gonzalez), but sometimes a headline is run (or isn't, Dmitry) for business purposes. And when business clashes with ethics, thats when you get a 'conspiricy'. Conspiricy is just a dirty word for it.. ironically, the rules of democracy and capitalism encourage 'conspiricies'. Ie, lies or misinformation spread from company (big media) to consumer (you). Don't tell me because you worked at CBS you can confirm there is no big conspiricy... history is rife with people working for evil, without even being aware of it.
Hey, I never said anything about conspiricy. I agree with you.. I just dont think a newspaper will see it as newsworthy, nor help their cause (or their parents) in any fashion.
I read this story on page 20 of my local daily. I don't believe anyone who says their local newspaper didn't mention it. But remember, if it's on page 20, public awareness is 1% of what it would be if it was first page. It never reaches a critical mass public awareness. And who decides first page? Editor. And how many large circulation papers are there in the States? Let's say.. lets say.. hrm, 50. The idea that the 40 or so editors (assuming one editor for each paper, although its more likely that papers owned by the same company go with the same big stories) would have to be 'on side' is not really a big number. In fact, they probably think what you're thinking when they are dealing with pressure from above on plugging certain stories and not running with others. So I don't think you have to be a huge conspiricy theorist to aknowledge that public awareness for 80% of people probably consists of a relatively small number of publications, and consequently a relatively small number of editors who'd rather fly with the voice from above than risk job security and shake the boat.
If newspapers found out tommorow that crack-cocaine was the cure for cancer, do you really believe that'd be the story you'd see in the paper, considering the government spends 20 billion dollars are a year trying to keep it off the streets?
Your news comes from big media content providers (think Time Warner AOL). Big media content providers want Dmitry nailed to a wall. You know that story a few days ago on/. about silicon valley using immigrant workers to keep salaries low? The story was actually circulated for publication 2 years ago, but no big paper would pick it up for fear of damaging themselves (they probably did it), and damaging the best story they had in years (the.com boom). News gets censored by media outlets ALL THE TIME. What's frightening is that people still think that news providers only have a slight 'political bias'. Untrue. They practice outright public awareness management. It's sad how controlled everyone's level of awareness is. Visit www.projectcensored.org to see what I'm talking about.
At any rate, to answer your original question, anyone in the software biz right now (save for Adobe), and publishing industry want him in jail. The types they want to know about his arrest (he's an example to be made of) will know it from reading the trade sites (like/., cnet), while the rest of the world won't know, so won't care.
Wondering why the big media outlets havn't advertised the scandal is like wondering why the Army doesn't hand out "War Kills People" brochures. The big media outlets are controled by the content providers, and the content providers want this kid nailed to the wall. It's as simple as that. Sad, wrong, but simple.
.. where in, Sir Slud's suspicion that humans are dumber than rocks is confirmed: They decided NOT to email the owners of infected webservers. I'm guessing they felt that those server admins have far more important emails to read, like "MAKE $$$ IN A WEEK - TRUE STORIES FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU"?
Linux is an ideal solution for embedded OSes, since you can 'flatten' it yourself (ie, not wait for M$ or who ever to scale the product down depending on your needs).
And, you know it scales up to full featured PCs, so in the next few years, as phone displays and bandwidth grows, your OS grows with it, until you no longer have a phone with an OS but rather a PC with the size and functionality of a phone.
Incidentally, exposing racism for the ugliness that it really is was part of the original brilliance of the movie. These days, I think people are more tired of the equality issue than anything (as demonstrated by the recent resurgance of neo-racist and neo-sexist punchlines in comedy and advertising), so the thing that made the original so effective and head-slapping is responsible for making the message in the remake sound strained and cliched.
You can't live up to nostalgia. This movie proves it, but any of the negatives people are whining about would be on the Standard Blockbuster Disclaimer agreement theatres should have you sign before you watch anyhow (I promise I will not expect anything too deep, etc...) The ending, which everyone seems to be complaining about is really a nod to the old series. That was the camp.. neccessary; the original stands the test of time, but find me a fan who won't admit camp was part of the series.
Slashdot Mirror
While the article definately has a Linux vs Windows angle to it (and you have to admit, it's hard to talk about one being deployed without considering the effects the other one may have had, had it been deployed), I'm simply more interested in hearing secretaries extoll the virtues of KDE.
...
While this issue has been in full-fledged war mode for years, I think *nix proponants such as myself would have far more success focusing on the suitability and usability of KDE and Gnome than always boiling it down to a Xwindows vs Windows debate. Sure, Windows does the job, I run it at home; but if this article proves that End User X, dumb as a post, doesn't mind KDE (I'd use it daily if my audio-apps ran in *nix), force it on em! Well, at least in situations where it's my tax dollar
Of course, the long term upside is that newbies 'n average users would finally have some variety in their computing experience before they blindly pledge allegience to the only OS they see commercials for; thus helping solidify *nix and KDE/Gnome as a viable platform for the Everyday Joe in the minds of the consumer.
Damn. Drugs are about the only thing that makes chess interesting.
This is like saying that a certain amount of rape is inevitable, so lay back and enjoy it.
.. more violently .. pick your poison, but eye-for-eye almost always leads to revenge worse than the original crime, even if it is in the name of authority.
.. sure, some of the viruses will help fight malicious ones, but after awhile, it will be difficult to tell just who the white and black hats are. Nevermind that the popularization of viruses for the cause of 'good' will start masquerading about for various personal causes; ie, the 'good' virus that only attacks 'hell-bound' porn sites, or 'good' viruses that only attack sites which endorse gay rights. (Well, of course, these types of attacks and viruses already exist, but legitemizing the distribution of viruses would only allow these authors to claim they are writing 'good' viruses.)
.. for good."), nor figure in the cost of 'good' viruses written improperly, and subsequently causing as much damage as the 'bad' viruses they seek to purge.
/. tradition. I'm just saying, there are other ways to fight viruses .. such as forcing a certain software maker to fix the pieces of swiss cheese they call web servers and mail clients, or condemning friends and family for not practicing caution when being online.
No, it's like saying a certain amount of rape does not justify raping the rapists (otherwise we could just allow rapists-to-be to get their jones off raping rapists (of their gender preference of course)). I realize that sometimes we are stuck between a rock and a hard place when dealing with miscreants, but the power to commit acts deemed illegal at the behest of authority leads to corruption - family and friends of those in charge of supervising the counter-rapes would no doubt get first shot, rape harder than the rapist did, longer
I support community action more than the average individual, but there is a very important distinction here: community action is only warrented when the action is to stem abuse and corruption AND the adversary does not make themselves avaiable to a dialog; and even THEN, only if they refuse to aknowledge that a large enough opposition to their behaviour or ideals should result in change.
I do NOT support community action to fight violence. Why? People are not responsible enough to recognize the difference between revenge and problem resolution. When it comes to the moment when you're smashing the bat over some dissident's head, you're probably not thinking about whether or not said dissident will continue their actions (in this case, continue writing bad viruses), but rather how much the dissident had this coming to them. And since you've lost sight of the goal, no resolution is likely to come from it. Same goes with white hat viruses
All this is notwithstanding the fact that you'd raise awareness of how to write viruses (I'd imagine you could easily publish a book "How to get into an IIS server, and spread
Unfortunately, mentalities like yours seem to prevail. People lack the tolerance and foresight to see that sometimes the eye-for-eye cure, no matter how self-satisfying, can cause the problem to reach levels of magnitude far beyond that which it would have reached had resolutions be seeked IN OTHER WAYS.
Incidentally, there is someone on our street with cracked windows. Despite this, everyone else seems content to continue to take pride in the appearance of their dwelling; the lawns are mowed, and the flower beds are gorgeous. If the motivation for behaviour was whatever the lowest common demonitor was, we'd have never gotten out of the stone age. I should hope that the sole motivator for maintaining some sense of responsibility, dignity, and self-control is not that others HAVE to do it to. I could list hundreds of examples, from j-walking to litter in which the only reason they havn't reached catasphoric levels is because SOME people take it upon themselves not to contribute to the problem, even if there is little chance of being punished or caught. Even if littering and jwalking were legal, I'm positive a significant portion of the population would continue respecting others' environment and traffic flow.
A please notice I never once suggested we 'lay back and enjoy it', although I suppose drawing judgemental conclusions out of posts has long since become a
what was erased on the infamous Watergate tape that pushed Nixon's downfall over the brink. It would be amazing to have this national mystery put to rest
;)
Actually, I heard the blank spot was just noise introduced by a top-secret CIA funded copy-protection scheme from the era.
Hey, at least we got some of the tape! If all this copy-protection shit had been introduced 30 years ago, we wouldn't have the tape AT ALL.
Heehee.
Uh .. whats the problem? That my point is invalid, because I am 'not old enough' to realize as such?
... I'm assume you are saying that being older, but likely not as familiar, with these cultures would alter my opinion? Like, duh, but the question is, is the opinion as relevant and informed?
.. I don't see how thats related to the issue.
I hate to be the harbringer of bad news, but the older you get, the more out of touch you would be with the behavior of teens, much less the understanding of why that behaviour is occuring in the first place. (Unless you work in marketing or some other function where your primary job is understanding.)
Please explain how being 23 is 'the problem for me', and what I would learn from being older as it relates to this issue. Hell, being 23, I still participate in these cultures, many of which are dominated by 15 yr olds (the gfx scene, the coding scene, the quake scene, the blog scene)
Never once was I claiming I knew more or less than the 15 yr olds Katz was describing
For once, Katz hits a nail on the head.
.. the world is going to shit'.
.. I just think that now, more than ever, young adults have control over what they see and where they are visitng. 10 years ago, the circles wern't as clearly defined (I personally think because there wasn't as much traffic and money around, so you wern't attempting to sell your image to anyone.), although the same climate obviously existed in some smaller scale.
Despite the obvious generalizations we have to make when discussing demographics, I am a firm believer than now, more than ever, are the next generation of adults are filtering their consumption to suit their agnst, social politics, and what have you. Cliques on the net have never been more clearly defined. One needs only read over various blog circles to recognize that each community typically involving young ones has a strict code of conduct, stipulating words, ideas, and what to rebel against. I AM NOT JUDGING whether the ideas and ideals being rebels against are valid. I'm NOT saying 'kids these days
Yes, I will probably get flamed for this. I'm sure it will be pointed out that this has always been happening, etc etc
Actually, there's nothing like a challenge to a virus writer .. so I'll bet if you started spreading a good one, you'd just start escalating the war. Sometimes I believe viruses havn't caused major catastrophes yet because we dont fight viruses with viruses. Think of guns .. since we fight guns with guns, it really ends up coming down to who has the most/biggest guns. Do we really want to find out who has the most time and haxoring genius, the black hats or the white hats?
From the patent:
PointCast.TM., however, is configured only to deliver content to the browser of a computer over the Internet. It is not designed or equipped with the means to download executable programs to a storage device connected to a computer and execute them at the remote computer.
In other words: PointCast does exactly what our thing does, only we instruct the machine (on the clientside) to run the bytes transferred, while PointCast only displayed them.
Definately an invention worthy of lucrative licencing fees! I guess this makes them Mc-A-Fee.
Oh, and:
Those skilled in the art may make numerous modifications and departures from the specific embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed invention.
In other words: This is a blanket patent. Please remember that when we're in litigation with a zillion other companies to obtain royalties.
Incidentally, I'm a programmer who works on C/C++/CORBA enterprise scale distributed apps, and I'd say I never need to use more than grade 10 math. Actually, my friend, who worked for a company that developed complex financial economics simulation software never had to use math; all math was provided by .. guess what .. mathematicians!
.. it's already there!
Yes, there are obviously some math skills required for programming, but in many many cases (GUI programming, scripting, distributed computing, etc), the math is very simple (object oriented methodology is far more likely to be important coming into a programming job than having to engage in above-high-school level math.) Thus, the argument employers were using, blaming the lack of talent on a lack of math skills seen in domestic potential hires, is clearly false.
Anyhow, if you really felt you could discredit a huge report based on one snarky line, you're a part of the group that doesn't need the system to pull the wool over its eyes
I know its been said to death, but really, royalties for patent owners for software should be limited to 1 year. Maybe 2. We all know software is pretty much obsolete after around 5 - 10 years. (ie, I'll take a guess that .Net will be around for maybe 10 years, if it's a commercial success.)
/talk/ to your software, can afford.
So the licencing wouldn't be prohibitive if you knew you only had to pay it for a limited time within the lifetime of the technology. Copyrights are supposed to help the inventor, but open up the forum to royalty-free competition while the invention is still viable and useful. This would foster more participants in the arena of competing technologies, and thus, more innovation. And we wouldn't be wondering if Microsoft ringing the death knell for SAMBA.
All of which is not withstanding the scary idea that developing a technology for 'changing passwords' should not entitle you to more royalty payments than a developer, of a technology which only wants to
Frightening.
US Patent Office: Selling monopoly rights to common sense for over 25 years. (Yes, I own the tee-shirt.)
From the Curl website:
.. their marketing strategy for selling next-generation CPUs is convincing the client that their CPU can't even /handle/ browsing the net!
Second, by harnessing the vast power of client-side computing. We take advantage of that 90 percent or more of a typical computer user's CPU that's just sitting there idle, itching to get into the Internet game.
Jebus, don't tell Intel
Yes yes, this is all very cool, but there has to be consumer demand to fuel this. Considering how long it is taking HDTV to become the norm (if ever), and our propensity to easily eat up whatever bandwidth current technology delivers with inane shit, I would truely be surprised if TV starts coming across the 'net anytime soon (ie, 10 years). Somehow, the media providers would have to slip their foot inside the door to reserve bandwidth on a telco's network before it gets eaten up by consumers? I'm just thinking about the case where the consumers already have the link, and are used to having bandwidth X available .. it'd be a tough sell to start piggybacking HDTV on those connections, and tell your consumer base that their available bandwidth will now be X, to make way for multicast HDTV streams you may not even be interested in.
Actually, I'm more interested in 'friendly off the air' messages in explorer:
"I'm sorry, the TV show you are trying to watch is unavailable. Please hit 'reload', or try again later."
That'd be enough to drive me back to my remote 'n good 'ol cable.
I like Lexx. Why?
.. man, the show should be required viewing for middle school kids in order to bolster social tolerance!
.. btw, I believe Lexx was created by Canadians. Can anyone confirm this?
- It happens to so stupidly far in the future
- the sexual innendoes
- its funny
just my two cents
The trouble here is that only your 'illegal' copy could damage your system. Which is your fault, since Sony did not produce the CD, you did. More frightening than the copy-protection technology is the fact that the industry has long since forgone the notion of fair use. This is what we should be livid about ... like people who complain about getting a parking ticket. YOU parked there, knowing you would get one.
... I vohemently oppose ANY copy protection scheme. The fact that this one might (/might/) damage your equipment should you exersice 'fair use' of your CDs is secondary to the fact that fair use seems like an old bedtime story that every company out there is desperately trying to forget.
/didn't/ damage your equipment next week, they'd look like heros, and with respect to this case alone, no one would seemingly have anything else to complain about.
I don't care if the copy protection scheme makes my stereo taste like a 22oz prime rib steak
What really scares me is that we're making all this furor over the fact that it damages your stereo. If Sony were to licence a copy-protection scheme that
Oh wait, except the fact that Sony denies the existance of FAIR USE. Bah.
> Really, yours is the most subtly deceptive reasoning because it infers that a "conspiracy" is required to silence dissident voices. In actuality, the people who write for these publications are only there because they have kissed the right asses. If they were any threat to write something rational or honest they would have been sniffed out long ago and had their access to power stripped from them.
:)
Right on, brother! I only wish more people understood that much of the unacceptable pain, persecution, and general discontent people experience in their lifetimes are the result not of evil-by-choice organizations, but rather evil-by-choice people leading ignorant/obendient-by-choice people. I could not have written it better myself. Give the man a prize!
Props to the Noam Chomsky archive there.
Puuleeeease. I'm talking about the news here, not what airs during prime time on television. The news will always be shown .. I wasn't saying big brother decides what shows to watch, I was saying what big brother decides what headline to run. And yes, sometimes that headline will be chosen because people eat it up (Elian Gonzalez), but sometimes a headline is run (or isn't, Dmitry) for business purposes. And when business clashes with ethics, thats when you get a 'conspiricy'. Conspiricy is just a dirty word for it .. ironically, the rules of democracy and capitalism encourage 'conspiricies'. Ie, lies or misinformation spread from company (big media) to consumer (you). Don't tell me because you worked at CBS you can confirm there is no big conspiricy ... history is rife with people working for evil, without even being aware of it.
Hey, I never said anything about conspiricy. I agree with you .. I just dont think a newspaper will see it as newsworthy, nor help their cause (or their parents) in any fashion.
.. lets say .. hrm, 50. The idea that the 40 or so editors (assuming one editor for each paper, although its more likely that papers owned by the same company go with the same big stories) would have to be 'on side' is not really a big number. In fact, they probably think what you're thinking when they are dealing with pressure from above on plugging certain stories and not running with others. So I don't think you have to be a huge conspiricy theorist to aknowledge that public awareness for 80% of people probably consists of a relatively small number of publications, and consequently a relatively small number of editors who'd rather fly with the voice from above than risk job security and shake the boat.
I read this story on page 20 of my local daily. I don't believe anyone who says their local newspaper didn't mention it. But remember, if it's on page 20, public awareness is 1% of what it would be if it was first page. It never reaches a critical mass public awareness. And who decides first page? Editor. And how many large circulation papers are there in the States? Let's say
If newspapers found out tommorow that crack-cocaine was the cure for cancer, do you really believe that'd be the story you'd see in the paper, considering the government spends 20 billion dollars are a year trying to keep it off the streets?
Your news comes from big media content providers (think Time Warner AOL). Big media content providers want Dmitry nailed to a wall. You know that story a few days ago on /. about silicon valley using immigrant workers to keep salaries low? The story was actually circulated for publication 2 years ago, but no big paper would pick it up for fear of damaging themselves (they probably did it), and damaging the best story they had in years (the .com boom). News gets censored by media outlets ALL THE TIME. What's frightening is that people still think that news providers only have a slight 'political bias'. Untrue. They practice outright public awareness management. It's sad how controlled everyone's level of awareness is. Visit www.projectcensored.org to see what I'm talking about.
/., cnet), while the rest of the world won't know, so won't care.
At any rate, to answer your original question, anyone in the software biz right now (save for Adobe), and publishing industry want him in jail. The types they want to know about his arrest (he's an example to be made of) will know it from reading the trade sites (like
Wondering why the big media outlets havn't advertised the scandal is like wondering why the Army doesn't hand out "War Kills People" brochures. The big media outlets are controled by the content providers, and the content providers want this kid nailed to the wall. It's as simple as that. Sad, wrong, but simple.
Linux is an ideal solution for embedded OSes, since you can 'flatten' it yourself (ie, not wait for M$ or who ever to scale the product down depending on your needs).
And, you know it scales up to full featured PCs, so in the next few years, as phone displays and bandwidth grows, your OS grows with it, until you no longer have a phone with an OS but rather a PC with the size and functionality of a phone.
No, it was the one that was most suitable AND provided an easy sequel route.
Incidentally, exposing racism for the ugliness that it really is was part of the original brilliance of the movie. These days, I think people are more tired of the equality issue than anything (as demonstrated by the recent resurgance of neo-racist and neo-sexist punchlines in comedy and advertising), so the thing that made the original so effective and head-slapping is responsible for making the message in the remake sound strained and cliched.
You can't live up to nostalgia. This movie proves it, but any of the negatives people are whining about would be on the Standard Blockbuster Disclaimer agreement theatres should have you sign before you watch anyhow (I promise I will not expect anything too deep, etc ...) The ending, which everyone seems to be complaining about is really a nod to the old series. That was the camp .. neccessary; the original stands the test of time, but find me a fan who won't admit camp was part of the series.
Look, from Project Censored, the group that reports on stories downplayed by big-business-owned media:
h tm l
http://www.projectcensored.org/c2001stories/10.