I complained to Apple for only hosting movie trailers in Quicktime format, because I wanted to be able to watch them using Flash MX. They just laughed at me.
DVDs are encrypted to prevent people who buy them from watching them? That's got to be the most ridiculous statement I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. I'm able to watch all the DVDs I buy, and so are the millions of other people who buy them to watch them on their normal DVD players.
They're encrypted to make it less convenient to make copies of the movies on them. It may be a side effect that a tiny minority of DVD purchasers are unable to watch the movies on the equipment they want to, but it's certainly not the purpose of the encryption.
You said: Every single person is responsible for where they are.
If you can't see that your statement leads to the idea that victims are responsible for their circumstances, then your grasp of the universal qualifier could use some work.
The very fact that the articles can change at all is sort of a problem with citing most web-based resources. If I cite the 2003 edition of an encyclopedia, someone reading my paper can go look up the relevant article. If I cite something on Wikipedia, and someone changes the article the day after I read it, a reader looking up the cited article might find it says something completely different than what I said it says. This might be ok for Ann Coulter, but most people like their sources to actually say what they claim they say.
With the anyone-can-edit model and revert wars, 2 readers following a citation a minute apart could conceivably find 2 articles making exactly opposite claims. And, for that matter, how does the researcher citing wikipedia in the first place know the information he's viewing at is at all accurate? If I use a traditional encylclopedia, I don't need to check back a few times between referencing an article and publishing a paper of my own to make sure the "facts" I cite didn't get reverted because at the second I viewed them some moron with an agenda inserted spurious information into the article. I agree that the open nature of wiki tends to clean articles up, so the average view of an article will get something accurate, but as long as pages are dynamic in real-time, they're not going to be as trustworthy as something static, whether it's edited by a bunch of professionals or a loose assocation of internet users.
When Microsoft hands me their source code and tells me I can do whatever the hell I want with it as long as I include a note saying they wrote it, you can compare the two.
Probably not, as any modifications made to a version of the code containing contributions by the programmer(s) who wouldn't accept the license change are derivative works, and covered by the same license.
Technically, your only option would probably be to revert the entire project to a cvs snapshot from right before the first piece of code by an objector to the license change was added, and work from there.
And last I checked, SCO wasn't suing anyone for using BSD-licensed code that they stole and then claimed as their own. So, empirically, GPL code is more likely to be stolen by an evil corporation who attempts to make it non-free.
Sure, because when the government is done trampling the rights of those who aren't old enough to vote yet, they probably won't decide to restrict older people or anything. Nah. Not our fine, upstanding legislators.
Wow, if your economic theories are correct, people should start leaving the keys in the Porsches with the doors unlocked and installing really good security systems in the crappy cars that no one would want. I mean, someone's likely to steal my beat up piece of crap car that's not worth the couple of thousand dollars they'd have to pay to get their own, but they'd never steal a good quality sports car.
Actually, it's a notebook, and isn't really intended for use on your lap in the first place. it's quite easy to use an external mouse on a desk or tabletop somewhere.
That was my point. The person I was replying to was specifically discussing his belief that "low-res" images of this sort could be interpreted, in court, to mean absolutely anything, in the absence of other evidence showing what you were actually doing, which is clearly something our court system is supposed to be set up to prevent. The prosecution's burden of proof is specifically set at a higher level so they can't show a jury a video of a blob moving around doing something indeterminate and then say "see, he could be looking at child porn right here".
The reasonable doubt provision does not aim to provide "perfect justice". Perfect justice would be if everyone who committed a crime was convicted and everyone who was accused of a crime he or she did not commit was acquitted.
Fortunately, the authors of the US Constitution believed, as I do, that it's "good enough" to let some people who commit crimes get acquitted if the government can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty, to ensure that not a single innocent person is convicted.
The real problem is that our law schools produce people who can, as Socrates was accused of doing, make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger, and convince juries to convict people who not only aren't guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but who are later proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be not guilty when new evidence or new techniques of analyzing evidence are used. Just having one person on death row exonerated by DNA evidence shows that the system is horribly broken.
Of course, the sort of "strict constructionists" who believe that the government should never, ever, even think of overstepping the authority granted to it in the Constitution are, ironically, the exact same people who think it's a "technicality" when an alleged criminal is set free because the Constitution includes specific provisions to protect the People from abuse by the government.
Presumably, the security force's helicopters would not, in fact, be hovering right over the target, as the slight chance a sniper would be around would be insignificant compared to the chance the helicopter itself would kill the guy. The suggestion was a helicopter-mounted unit to check buildings with a line of sight to where the VIP would be travelling.
That's why we have that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof thing.
If they have a low-res recording of you building a bomb, your defense attorney can reasonably argue that the blob the jury sees could be doing anything. I doubt such images would ever even be considered admissible by the courts if they were of such low quality.
Well, without Google News it would be a pain, but they do a really good job or presenting a ton of articles from different sources all over the world grouped together well.
I prefer to get my information from several different sources, all of which I judge to be relatively less biased, and then form my own opinion. If a story about legislation reports on what the legislation is and then says "this legislation is bad", I won't trust that source anymore, unless it's clearly labelled as an editorial comment. The grandparent poster complained that he's not being told what to think, which is just stupid.
Well, a good Cray does make a better piece of furniture than an iMac, but considering the space they take up I think the iMac still wins out as an interior design element.
Yes, he was responding to a joke, but if, like him, you believe the joke was made out of ignorance (i.e., that the original poster thought "attitude" was a typo for "altitude" and was attempting to make a joke at the expense of the article's author, who actually knew what he was talking about), then it was an appropriate response.
In any event, it was a stupid joke and one that was made about 2 dozen times attached to the story about SpaceShipOne's problems with attitude control. Yes, an aeronautic term and a psychological term are homonyyms. Really funny stuff there. Let's all make the same joke over and over.
If you want your news source to tell you what to think about a story, watch Fox News. Some of us prefer the facts without having an editorial opinion attached to the story.
If you tell them about it, they know you weren't trying to blow up the plane and just want your bag, which means it's no longer important enough to them that they'd actually make the effort to find it. If you didn't ask them to pull the bag and didn't get on the plane, they'd probably shut down the entire airport, find your bag, and have the bomb squad blow it up just to be safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I complained to Apple for only hosting movie trailers in Quicktime format, because I wanted to be able to watch them using Flash MX. They just laughed at me.
Good for Apple. Real probably wanted to provide them with pre-compiled code loaded with spyware to integrate into iTunes.
They're encrypted to make it less convenient to make copies of the movies on them. It may be a side effect that a tiny minority of DVD purchasers are unable to watch the movies on the equipment they want to, but it's certainly not the purpose of the encryption.
If you can't see that your statement leads to the idea that victims are responsible for their circumstances, then your grasp of the universal qualifier could use some work.
With the anyone-can-edit model and revert wars, 2 readers following a citation a minute apart could conceivably find 2 articles making exactly opposite claims. And, for that matter, how does the researcher citing wikipedia in the first place know the information he's viewing at is at all accurate? If I use a traditional encylclopedia, I don't need to check back a few times between referencing an article and publishing a paper of my own to make sure the "facts" I cite didn't get reverted because at the second I viewed them some moron with an agenda inserted spurious information into the article. I agree that the open nature of wiki tends to clean articles up, so the average view of an article will get something accurate, but as long as pages are dynamic in real-time, they're not going to be as trustworthy as something static, whether it's edited by a bunch of professionals or a loose assocation of internet users.
When Microsoft hands me their source code and tells me I can do whatever the hell I want with it as long as I include a note saying they wrote it, you can compare the two.
Technically, your only option would probably be to revert the entire project to a cvs snapshot from right before the first piece of code by an objector to the license change was added, and work from there.
And last I checked, SCO wasn't suing anyone for using BSD-licensed code that they stole and then claimed as their own. So, empirically, GPL code is more likely to be stolen by an evil corporation who attempts to make it non-free.
Sure, because when the government is done trampling the rights of those who aren't old enough to vote yet, they probably won't decide to restrict older people or anything. Nah. Not our fine, upstanding legislators.
Wow, if your economic theories are correct, people should start leaving the keys in the Porsches with the doors unlocked and installing really good security systems in the crappy cars that no one would want. I mean, someone's likely to steal my beat up piece of crap car that's not worth the couple of thousand dollars they'd have to pay to get their own, but they'd never steal a good quality sports car.
Does using small children to make your hat work better than tin foil?
So in the UK it's illegal to let your friend borrow anything of yours, because that's larceny?
Actually, it's a notebook, and isn't really intended for use on your lap in the first place. it's quite easy to use an external mouse on a desk or tabletop somewhere.
That was my point. The person I was replying to was specifically discussing his belief that "low-res" images of this sort could be interpreted, in court, to mean absolutely anything, in the absence of other evidence showing what you were actually doing, which is clearly something our court system is supposed to be set up to prevent. The prosecution's burden of proof is specifically set at a higher level so they can't show a jury a video of a blob moving around doing something indeterminate and then say "see, he could be looking at child porn right here".
Fortunately, the authors of the US Constitution believed, as I do, that it's "good enough" to let some people who commit crimes get acquitted if the government can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty, to ensure that not a single innocent person is convicted.
The real problem is that our law schools produce people who can, as Socrates was accused of doing, make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger, and convince juries to convict people who not only aren't guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but who are later proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be not guilty when new evidence or new techniques of analyzing evidence are used. Just having one person on death row exonerated by DNA evidence shows that the system is horribly broken.
Of course, the sort of "strict constructionists" who believe that the government should never, ever, even think of overstepping the authority granted to it in the Constitution are, ironically, the exact same people who think it's a "technicality" when an alleged criminal is set free because the Constitution includes specific provisions to protect the People from abuse by the government.
Presumably, the security force's helicopters would not, in fact, be hovering right over the target, as the slight chance a sniper would be around would be insignificant compared to the chance the helicopter itself would kill the guy. The suggestion was a helicopter-mounted unit to check buildings with a line of sight to where the VIP would be travelling.
If they have a low-res recording of you building a bomb, your defense attorney can reasonably argue that the blob the jury sees could be doing anything. I doubt such images would ever even be considered admissible by the courts if they were of such low quality.
Well, without Google News it would be a pain, but they do a really good job or presenting a ton of articles from different sources all over the world grouped together well.
I prefer to get my information from several different sources, all of which I judge to be relatively less biased, and then form my own opinion. If a story about legislation reports on what the legislation is and then says "this legislation is bad", I won't trust that source anymore, unless it's clearly labelled as an editorial comment. The grandparent poster complained that he's not being told what to think, which is just stupid.
Or it might have more to do with the broader sell off of tech shares than an announcement about a single product.
Well, a good Cray does make a better piece of furniture than an iMac, but considering the space they take up I think the iMac still wins out as an interior design element.
In any event, it was a stupid joke and one that was made about 2 dozen times attached to the story about SpaceShipOne's problems with attitude control. Yes, an aeronautic term and a psychological term are homonyyms. Really funny stuff there. Let's all make the same joke over and over.
If you want your news source to tell you what to think about a story, watch Fox News. Some of us prefer the facts without having an editorial opinion attached to the story.
If you tell them about it, they know you weren't trying to blow up the plane and just want your bag, which means it's no longer important enough to them that they'd actually make the effort to find it. If you didn't ask them to pull the bag and didn't get on the plane, they'd probably shut down the entire airport, find your bag, and have the bomb squad blow it up just to be safe.
That show would have been much better if nothing had ever changed from the first episode. They should have just remade it over and over for years.