Name: Mr. Tielsson, John Street: 32, Hambersand lane, Gamberland, Wyoming, USA Photo: subjectphoto.png Criminal history: drunken disorderly conduct 5. jan 1993 Birthday/social security number: 050169-3878 Mate: Roberta Garterdank (deceased, 2. jan 1993) Comments: Seems to have a problem with authority. Is a member of the green party and amnesty international.
I think Bill Hicks said it best: "Stop putting a fucking dollar sign on everything."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Hey, how about keeping the moon the collective property of all humanity? Why do these rich pricks always have to own everything? They already own the property you are in and the land beneath your feet that you keep paying for every month. Not only that, but they can create money out of thin air with the wonderful fractional reserve banking system imposed on us.
Bah, I've already rambled enough for now.
Also, if you work in marketing, kill yourselves.
A new Internet Explorer from Microsoft. Will it smoke the Firefox? Will it outsing the Opera? Well, let's find out!
First, it only runs on ONE platform. Microsoft windows. Making a multi-platform program today is easy. Even a toddler can do it. All the cool programmers and companies are doing it. There are so many toolkits that can do it that you are really spoiled for choice. Even if they really want to use the windows API they could still check to make sure it runs with wine. Google can do it, so could Microsoft. There really is no excuse in 2008 not to, except perhaps if you are trying to hold on to a sagging monopoly.
Second. You can't modify it, redistribute it or use it to run a nuclear powerplant. Simply put: It isn't Free software. Looking under the bonnet is a must for any youngster that wants to know what makes the engine go and to tweak it. Sadly, Microsoft aren't up to that challenge.
Finally, I don't like the icon or the color. It's a letter, you know, from the alphabet. Here try clicking this: e
Ugly, isn't it.
So what happened when I tried to run it? Well, since I don't run an operating system from that particular company I instead tried to run it, with some WINE (http://www.winehq.com). This is a piece of software that Google use with great success to run its windows native Picasa application on GNU+Linux and BSD operating systems. Right from the getgo: The wheels spin, but the installer crashes and burns as it fails to install the program right at the beginning. What a letdown. My conclusion then: It's simply rubbish. You can have Mozilla Firefox for half the price and all the benefits of the Freedom it brings. Also, Firefox has a new beta out that smokes IE8 right from the starting line. In fact it can be installed and run right now on almost any platform you can think of! Microsoft are still stuck in the 1990s thinking that you only make cars for one type of road and that people aren't interested in modifying them. Until they change their ways they will always be second class.
After all, they are here to stay and the sooner the rebel leaders accepts this the sooner the rebels can learn to live with the empire and not to fight against it.
Perhaps you should check out Neooffice
It's an excellent port that uses the native osx widgets. I'm going to be deploying it where I work next January on hundreds of iMacs.
Today from the white house press:
President George W. Bush signed today a new law limiting how much oxygen each american can consume per day. Anyone passing their limit must hold their breath for the time remaining until their next quota. "For those who consider themselves unable to hold their breath for extended periods of time can now purchase 'air units' from the govermental environmental enforcement agency" stated president Bush after signing this historic bill into law.
When asked if anyone had any questions for him no one replied since all the news press seemed to have passed out on the floor and misteriously turning blue in the face.
I know this is sort of the long way around to coming to a point but it is this: When everything has been made illegal then everyone will always be breaking the law no matter what they do. It is only a matter of finding something even remotely plausable when some individual becomes bothersome for the powers that be to be able to but him or her away somewhere.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
The tendency to make biased documentaries is pretty old (relatively). See "Moore, Michael" or "Fox News", or anything like that. This is simply the extension of polarized politics to another field. It's not like "the other side" is anywhere near unbiased on the issue. Mainstream media just takes orders from corporate headquarters and assumes that filesharing is bad and costs them money.
I have searched my conscience and I cannot for the life of me believe that to all arguments are two equal and opposite sides. If you know the history of copyright and the ideology it was founded on, if you know of the history if the industrial revolution and its effects and the welfare of the common people then the only conclusion I can reach in regard to the sharing of ideas and culture around the world is the one which benefits the many over the privileged few.
I'm a lesbian. I also have an immune system/skin condition called psoriasis. I've spent the last eight years fighting with different doctors for the chance to try new treatments when they become available.
Perhaps I could offer you some advice.
The reason for the doctors hesitation to prescribe you the experimental medicin is due to their danger of being liable for the side effects of those drugs that have not been officially aproved by the FDA, even if you acknowledge the danger of said effects.
Go talk to a lawyer and have him/her/it draft a letter of legal absolution from liability which you can offer the reluctant doctors in exchange for their cooperation.
Basically, they are just covering their own asses when they are denying you those drugs.
Good luck.
Also, I think that the slashdotting community would probably not be adverse to you writing down some of your romantic exploits. In fact that's probably what the slashdot's journal was made for: Hot lesbian love;-)
feeling better, thank you
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I always have the feeling the gentoo runs more smoothly if I recompile the kernel again, even if it's the same version that is currently running.
What I don't understand is why people feel they have this sense of entitlement to copyrighted commercial content, just because it can be easily copied
I can enlighten you on that point.
Copyright was first established in the United States with the Copyright Act of 1790, which allowed for a term of 28 years. The Constitution explicitly described copyright as a statutory right created for public benefit: "The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (Article 1, Section 8).
Does copyright today work for the public benefit?
Fundamentally, copyright is an agreement between the public (by their representives) and the owners of culture, so that those who make culture can feed themselves and their family, buy a house etc. while the public can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Copyright is then supposed to expire into the public domain after the author has made use of his rights that encourage him or her to make more.
The owners of culture have keept extending copyright again and again, added more restrictions on the public with who they supposedly made this agreement with without consulting them in regard to their extensions and additions.
Now copyright lasts from 50 to 70 years (different from country to country) after the death of the original author. Tell me this. How can the author be enticed to make more works for the public good if he or she is dead? Could you please anwser me that?
At some point the non-referred public just took their hat and left because they weren't worth consideration anymore it seemed. As far as the internet using public is concerned, the original agreement between them and the supposed owners of culture has been broken though negligence and being shameless pricks (as you so eloquently put it). Copyright was also originally made to restrict publishers because publishing (i.e. getting your work out to the public) was very expensive. Now, that it has become so very inexpensive one would think that copyright would last a shorter time, not longer.
You keep saying the the public must stop doing this because they are violating the copyright act. But those laws were NOT written with the public consent (and don't try to say that the public agreed because they got passed, that is like saying that deciding to hurt somone without that person being there to disaprove is the same as having their agreement to do it). For the owners of culture it is nothing short of having your cake and eating it too. They make the laws and the public is supposed to obey them without question. The peoples representatives aren't anymore.
Regarding digital restrictions management.
You say that it is a necessary. Your justification for it seems to be that without it it would be too easy for the public to copy whatever part of the culture they liked to give to their friends or edit or make use of in some way. You further explain that this must not be so because they would be violating copyrights. It is nothing short of treating people as criminals before they commit the crime. Inocent until proven guilty indeed!
Being able to easily copy and mix material is increadably useful to everyone. However the copyright cartel have nibbed it in the bud by passing the DMCA. Now, anyone copying material that is "proctected" with digital restrictions management is now a criminal. Is that in the public good or for the good of a few rich people and corporations?
Simply but, the copyright agreement simply isn't nearly as useful to the public as it once was. If the supposed owners of culture wish to keep the current system somewhat intact and they want the public to edhere to the original agreement then they must use their representatives in the House to shorten copyright considerably (to say the original 28 years retroactively), eliminat
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you mean the USA method then.
AVP2 is most intense on the highest difficulty as a marine, especially because then you can't save and you only get 1 life.
Name: Mr. Tielsson, John
Street: 32, Hambersand lane, Gamberland, Wyoming, USA
Photo: subjectphoto.png
Criminal history: drunken disorderly conduct 5. jan 1993
Birthday/social security number: 050169-3878
Mate: Roberta Garterdank (deceased, 2. jan 1993)
Comments: Seems to have a problem with authority. Is a member of the green party and amnesty international.
feel welcome.
I think Bill Hicks said it best: "Stop putting a fucking dollar sign on everything." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo Hey, how about keeping the moon the collective property of all humanity? Why do these rich pricks always have to own everything? They already own the property you are in and the land beneath your feet that you keep paying for every month. Not only that, but they can create money out of thin air with the wonderful fractional reserve banking system imposed on us. Bah, I've already rambled enough for now. Also, if you work in marketing, kill yourselves.
A new Internet Explorer from Microsoft. Will it smoke the Firefox? Will it outsing the Opera? Well, let's find out!
First, it only runs on ONE platform. Microsoft windows. Making a multi-platform program today is easy. Even a toddler can do it. All the cool programmers and companies are doing it. There are so many toolkits that can do it that you are really spoiled for choice. Even if they really want to use the windows API they could still check to make sure it runs with wine. Google can do it, so could Microsoft. There really is no excuse in 2008 not to, except perhaps if you are trying to hold on to a sagging monopoly.
Second. You can't modify it, redistribute it or use it to run a nuclear powerplant. Simply put: It isn't Free software. Looking under the bonnet is a must for any youngster that wants to know what makes the engine go and to tweak it. Sadly, Microsoft aren't up to that challenge.
Finally, I don't like the icon or the color. It's a letter, you know, from the alphabet. Here try clicking this: e
Ugly, isn't it.
So what happened when I tried to run it? Well, since I don't run an operating system from that particular company I instead tried to run it, with some WINE (http://www.winehq.com). This is a piece of software that Google use with great success to run its windows native Picasa application on GNU+Linux and BSD operating systems.
Right from the getgo: The wheels spin, but the installer crashes and burns as it fails to install the program right at the beginning. What a letdown.
My conclusion then: It's simply rubbish. You can have Mozilla Firefox for half the price and all the benefits of the Freedom it brings. Also, Firefox has a new beta out that smokes IE8 right from the starting line. In fact it can be installed and run right now on almost any platform you can think of! Microsoft are still stuck in the 1990s thinking that you only make cars for one type of road and that people aren't interested in modifying them. Until they change their ways they will always be second class.
Final lap score:
0 out of 10.
First rule of Microsoft, you don't talk about Microsoft.
Second rule of Microsoft, you DON'T TALK ABOUT Microsoft!
I think that there is a possibility here for a great new slashdot meme!
I just can't seem to think of anything with a glowing pig in it.
After all, they are here to stay and the sooner the rebel leaders accepts this
the sooner the rebels can learn to live with the empire and not to fight against it.
Perhaps this is a good start?
Outlook not good!
Perhaps you should check out Neooffice
It's an excellent port that uses the native osx widgets. I'm going to be deploying it where I work next January on hundreds of iMacs.
President George W. Bush signed today a new law limiting how much oxygen each american can consume per day. Anyone passing their limit must hold their breath for the time remaining until their next quota.
"For those who consider themselves unable to hold their breath for extended periods of time can now purchase 'air units' from the govermental environmental enforcement agency" stated president Bush after signing this historic bill into law.
When asked if anyone had any questions for him no one replied since all the news press seemed to have passed out on the floor and misteriously turning blue in the face.
I know this is sort of the long way around to coming to a point but it is this: When everything has been made illegal then everyone will always be breaking the law no matter what they do. It is only a matter of finding something even remotely plausable when some individual becomes bothersome for the powers that be to be able to but him or her away somewhere.
The reason for the doctors hesitation to prescribe you the experimental medicin is due to their danger of being liable for the side effects of those drugs that have not been officially aproved by the FDA, even if you acknowledge the danger of said effects.
Go talk to a lawyer and have him/her/it draft a letter of legal absolution from liability which you can offer the reluctant doctors in exchange for their cooperation.
Basically, they are just covering their own asses when they are denying you those drugs. Good luck.
Also, I think that the slashdotting community would probably not be adverse to you writing down some of your romantic exploits. In fact that's probably what the slashdot's journal was made for: Hot lesbian love ;-)
I gotta stop using gentoo.
I can enlighten you on that point.
Does copyright today work for the public benefit?
Fundamentally, copyright is an agreement between the public (by their representives) and the owners of culture, so that those who make culture can feed themselves and their family, buy a house etc. while the public can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Copyright is then supposed to expire into the public domain after the author has made use of his rights that encourage him or her to make more.
The owners of culture have keept extending copyright again and again, added more restrictions on the public with who they supposedly made this agreement with without consulting them in regard to their extensions and additions.
Now copyright lasts from 50 to 70 years (different from country to country) after the death of the original author. Tell me this. How can the author be enticed to make more works for the public good if he or she is dead? Could you please anwser me that?
At some point the non-referred public just took their hat and left because they weren't worth consideration anymore it seemed. As far as the internet using public is concerned, the original agreement between them and the supposed owners of culture has been broken though negligence and being shameless pricks (as you so eloquently put it). Copyright was also originally made to restrict publishers because publishing (i.e. getting your work out to the public) was very expensive. Now, that it has become so very inexpensive one would think that copyright would last a shorter time, not longer.
You keep saying the the public must stop doing this because they are violating the copyright act. But those laws were NOT written with the public consent (and don't try to say that the public agreed because they got passed, that is like saying that deciding to hurt somone without that person being there to disaprove is the same as having their agreement to do it). For the owners of culture it is nothing short of having your cake and eating it too. They make the laws and the public is supposed to obey them without question. The peoples representatives aren't anymore.
Regarding digital restrictions management.
You say that it is a necessary. Your justification for it seems to be that without it it would be too easy for the public to copy whatever part of the culture they liked to give to their friends or edit or make use of in some way. You further explain that this must not be so because they would be violating copyrights. It is nothing short of treating people as criminals before they commit the crime. Inocent until proven guilty indeed!
Being able to easily copy and mix material is increadably useful to everyone. However the copyright cartel have nibbed it in the bud by passing the DMCA. Now, anyone copying material that is "proctected" with digital restrictions management is now a criminal. Is that in the public good or for the good of a few rich people and corporations?
Simply but, the copyright agreement simply isn't nearly as useful to the public as it once was. If the supposed owners of culture wish to keep the current system somewhat intact and they want the public to edhere to the original agreement then they must use their representatives in the House to shorten copyright considerably (to say the original 28 years retroactively), eliminat
Don't you mean verse two-point-oh?
We'll certainly NOT win this fight with such a defeatist attitude!
Cavemen discover fire!