"Ever been in the situation where a certain expensive piece of equipment would be ideal to do the job at hand, but you would probably never ever need it to use it again, thus making the purchase/rental of equipment prohibitive?"
If it's expensive (i.e. specialized), and you only have to use it once, then wouldn't rental be ideal? I would rather rent an expensive piece of equipment once, than roll my own and hope that it works (half as well as the real thing).
I guess it comes down to what your time is worth, but personally, I would want to rent in a situation like this.
I didn't read the article or the judgment, but this is common sense.
Google shouldn't have to babysit every ad that is sold. At the same time, the article summary gives the impression that Google is allowed to advertise themselves using a trademarked name, but Google is just selling ads to whomever will buy them and allowing these users to place whatever text they want.
I would be willing to bet that there is trademark infringement, but Geiko is going to have to go after the companies that are buying the ads.
You know, this seems very similar to the whole P2P argument going on. The *AA are trying to stop the vehicle of p2p when it can be used for good or evil when they should be going after the specific infringers. This seems very similar. Google just provides a vehicle for advertisement. This can be used for good or evil, but Google should not be held liable for the evil of others. And I almost wish this could be used as a sort of precedence, but I don't think our legal system would understand the logic.
Sorry if this is offtopic or considered flamebait, but...
Why does everything Google does get on the front page of Slashdot?
Don't get me wrong, I love Google, and this is a neat feature, but this makes it to the front page?
Perhaps because it's innovative? No, this has been in various software products for years (especially notable on PDAs like the iPaq). Maybe it's really novel because it's on the web? Yes, it's on the Internet now so Google should patent it!
Sorry, but I just get this feeling that when I see "The next story will be posted soon..." that it will be a story about how Google or Apple will have done something trivial (look, a 3d button on the web!) but we're all supposed to start drooling over it.
It's starting to look like there will be a pretty good format war between the two new HD optical disks in the near future. Both sides are doing an excellent job in aligning themselves with key players that will help them to get their format accepted by the public, and various people on Slashdot have mentioned the benefits of both media.
I have a pretty good hunch that we'll be seeing many drives and players that are dual format (like DVD +/ - R is now). If this does happen, it won't be so bad if there are two dominant media types, and I am sure the competition between the formats can be good for consumers. We shall see!
I was always under the impression that laptops were supposed to be mobile (but maybe that's just me)...
It seems like this would be more useful for company systems that have highly proprietary, sensitive data on them that you wouldn't want moving around. I could see a very nice, dual G5 screaming "I'm being stolen" as the janitor carts it out with his supplies (though how it does that without a power source is beyond me, I guess you would need a secondary power source just for this system).
Also, and I'm really not trying to start a flame war here, but first, what's wrong with a janitor having a laptop, and why assume that it's a janitor stealing the laptop? I would guess that it's a disgruntled employee or just-fired employee (that's not properly escorted out) that would pull a stunt like that. And I would think that laptops are stolen from public places like libraries and parks rather and work places where I think a system like this might not be as useful.
I just bought a Tivo a month ago (thanks to the $100 rebate), and I've noticed that things happen that can royally screw up the Tivo experience. I don't think the first one is the network's fault, but when live events go over their time alloted, everything gets pushed back, and if your Tivo is going to record from 8-9pm, you will miss that 15-30 minutes the "live event" (football game) went over. I have also noticed what the front page summary mentioned, and it is incredibly annoying, but I don't think they're doing it a lot because it can mess up many other things (traditional VCR tapers). I was thinking the other day about how much effort it would be to screw over a Tivo user, and the answer is apparently not much. I expect more tricks like this will happen as more people adopt Tivo. Of course, I'm sure the manufacturers of DVRs will answer back, and as people have already mentioned, you can fix these problems if you have a dual-tuner recorder (but some of us don't have that kind of spare cash).
Yes, I remember seeing a link to the "new, improved" Google Groups Beta a few months ago when I was using the standard version. I tried it out because it was something new from Google, and I thought it would be outstanding. But I agree, the improvements really seem to be steps back, and I immediatly went back to using the old groups.google.com. I really hope all of the negative comments in the Google thread help them understand their users want these old futures, and even if they want to keep the new interface, it would be great if they could fix what they broke.
I can tell you that spyware removal is about 90% of my consulting (side) business these days. I can usually rake in an extra $300-500 / month thanks to all the spyware problems. I feel bad when I have repeat customers, but I do spend a good amount of time educating the users and immunizing their PCs, but they always find new ways of getting spyware on their computers (it always seems to be the kids and their p2p "needs"...).
Now, as an industry, I don't understand why so much money was spent. There are outstanding tools and tutorials on removing every type of spyware, and every it seems like all the best ones are free.
If you want any pointers or tips on spyware removal, and you don't live in my area:-), I'll be glad to help you anything I can.
I worked at a law firm 4 years ago (in their IT department) and the whole legal system wrt this filing has confused me a lot. I always thought that trials were supposed to be public, but that certainly doesn't seem the case anymore. As of 2000, you had to have some sort of ID or know someone with an ID to get into a courthouse (and if you were coming as a guest of someone with an ID, you had to go through a security check, where as they could just walk in). It seems like most cases you hear about are closed to the public, and occationally the judge will allow some sort of video feed out to the press. It doesn't really bother me all that much because I don't have a huge interest in going and watching a bunch of trials, but I don't ever want to be put in a position where I'm tried for something and nobody is allowed to know anything about the case (as has happened to certain 'enemy combantants' in the last couple of years).
Whatever. It seems like judges are allowed to do whatever they want in their courtroooms, and no other branch of government gets to keep it in check (after all, an appeal judge will support his buddy judge in an appeal of a judicial decision).
In this case, I feel like the information should be made public, mostly because I think it would be great for the public to see that SCO's case is baseless and help clear the name of Linux before decision-makers decide to choose something other than Linux. I also don't see the point of making this case so private, there doesn't seem to be any sort of really good reason to make a case private (strong mafia/mob witness protection type issues, etc.). So, let's hope this filing succeeds.
Here are my couple of thoughts on the subject. First, it seems like obtaining the Helium-3 would be prohibitively expensive. We would need something like a space elevator first before we could really start shuttling this stuff back to earth. I guess the other option is to build a reactor on the moon and beam the energy back to earth (but we all know how dangerous that is based on SimCity, right?).
One thing that doesn't sit easy with me wrt this is that even though there is 10x more energy in Helium-3 on the moon compared to 'fossil' fuels here on earth, I have a feeling that we would still deplete it relatively quickly (with exponential population growth and all).
I think that ultimately the answer is going to have to be with solar energy, since that is an incredible source of energy for a long time. But, whether it's looking for efficient means of converting solar energy to something usable, or transporting the Helium-3 from the moon, it's going to take the price of gas skyrocketing before people cry for a change. I just hope that by that point it's not too late.
Our vendors are notorious for demanding superuser access to the boxes that support their applications.
There are a few things you can do in this case:
1. Get a different vendor (if the application truly does require su for vendor support).
2. Reqest different support staff from the vendor (do this if the app doesn't require su but the support staff is too lazy).
3. Learn how to support the app in-house
I am very serious on these points. You do not want to give root access to people that should not need it. If they say they need it, they have an awful application.
The place I work has a vendor area fenced off from the rest of the server room, and the vendors only have access to what they need. If they need more privileges, the IT guys watch them like a hawk until they're done.
I had no clue the Beatles had a company called Apple Corps. There's a Wikipedia entry about it.
Regarding the case, it sounds like Apple is screwed. It sounds like they haven't won any of these cases in the past (or, at the very least they settled out of court paying large sums to the Beatles' company).
It sounds like Forbes thinks this will be one of the largest court cases in histroy (from TFA), but I'll be that Apple will end up settling out of court (probably for a large amount still, but if they habitually break these rulings/agreements, they're going to have to pay).
It doesn't look like the news hurt Apple too much today.
I have some mixed feelings about piracy. I believe that, at the core, software piracy is morally reprehensible (sorry about using the term piracy for those of you that quibble about that, but it is the term used in the summary).
As a software developer, I feel that I ought to get paid for the work I do. I do work for a company that pays me to develop, so it's really their responsibility to make sure their software isn't pirated (if they want to protect their business).
Nevertheless, I feel that piracy can be benefically to any company, regardless of size. I think that it may even help smaller companies more than larger companies, because piracy may be the vehicle in which a particual software package becomes very popular. However, one has to realize that 100% of software can't be pirated, otherwise nobody would develop anything meaningful (excepting the free software movement, but that's something pretty special [and I do wholeheartedly support it, even with LOC when I can]--I am speaking in a manner of business). Like most things in economics, it probably requires the right critical mass (you need to have the right number/ratio of people buying your software to make you profitable, but you need to have a certian number/ratio of people pirating it to make it popular).
I never think that software should ever use measures that destroy your property (digital or otherwise) as a means to prevent piracy. I am glad that the author of the software mentioned above took out the folder deleting technique--I cannot believe he did that in the first place.
I get genuinely confused about what is legal and illegal in terms of downloading copyrighted music.
This is the way I understand it (and I won't proclaim to be 100% correct, but if you follow my reasoning I think you'll agree with me here):
1: It is illegal to download copyrighted material (in the US) if you don't have a license to that material. In other words, if you already own that Weird Al CD, it's not illegal to download the songs off of that CD, but if you don't own the CD, it is illegal. The RIAA hasn't been suing downloaders because they can't prove whether or not you have a license to that song.
2. It is illegal to upload/distribute copyrighted material you don't own wihout consent of the copyright holder. The RIAA owns the copyrights of a lot of the songs on the P2P networks, so they're the ones that get to stipulate how the music gets distributed (and they obviously don't promote p2p). However, if your favorite band has explicity said (and legally you should probably get it in writing, but it seems like people follow the spirit of the law here) that sharing their music is okay (and they are the copyright holder of their music [not the RIAA]), then you are permitted to upload the music on a p2p network. Also, the RIAA can very easily see which IPs are uploading music that they have not given consent for distribution, and so those people are the users they are suing.
Sorry if that was confusing, but I hope it's an adequate explanation of copyright rights. I've seen a lot of explanations under this article that have stated that downloading isn't illegal, but the truth is that it may or may not be depending on your situation (even the country you live in).
Conservatives believe what's good for the corporations is good for everyone. Liberals believe that what is good for the people is good for everyone.
This is not at all what I think conservatives and liberals are defined as. There are more standard definitions out there, but I think that the political climate is shifting with regard to this.
I have always considered myself a conservative, and this is why I have considered myself that. Ultimately, I fell that government should have as little interaction with the citizens as possible. I think that it's alright for the government to maintain a military, support public education, and step in where a capitalist, free-market economy breaks down or is inefficient (like a monopoly), but beyond the scope of these few things, I feel the government should stay out of my life (and there are other things than what I list of course, those are just a few examples). With this, I think, should come low taxes (just enough to support the couple of things the government does). I don't think the government should tax the rich to give to the poor (welfare, medicaid, etc.). In my view, I think a liberal would support these kinds of "social" programs, and that they ultimately support a larger government.
Now I think this is were conservatives come off sounding heartless (no national welfare), but there are other solutions than government run welfare. I believe it should be left up to local communities to take care of their needy (more efficient, more personal)--this is something I would truly be willing to support!
Now, I feel that the situation has almost reversed. Clinton, though I didn't really support him, was able to actually balance the budget, and the government didn't grow that fast. Bush, now has a budget crisis and the government is almost twice as big as when he started (due mostly to the new homeland security agencies, but still).
Socially, my views still line up with conservatives (no abortion [I believe unborn babies should be considered humans with rights], no gun control [or very little-you have to be able to fight the government if the time ever comes, and it's our 2nd amendment right!], etc), but it seems fiscally that I don't really line up with either main party (I think my views line up with the libertarians here).
Nevertheless, no matter how you view conservative vs. liberal, it has nothing to do with what's good for people vs. corporations. I think it's fine if corporations succeed in capitalism, and I think it's fine if people succeed in capitalism. Some of both will also fail. I don't think that your political slant favors one over the other though. You might argue that based on the current administration, but I also don't think that it's very "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination.
And most universities have a student legal service who will represent you for free (a lot of fine print in there though)
And one bit of fine print you'll find at every school is that these student legal services won't help you in legal action against the school (obvious conflict of interest there), so if you want to take your action against the school for violating your rights, it'll have to be on your own dime.
A story is a meaning applied to events after they have occurred.
Then perhaps your definition (or the standard definition, whatever) is narrow, or perhaps they just misused the term, but I don't think that is the point.
I think the point the author of the article was trying to make was that instead of having a "story", or some linear sequence of events happen to the player (the character), you will have a completely interactive world where your actions can change the world, and that changed world affects you differently now, which essentially changes the story.
If you have a wandering storyline, who cares what the 2nd or 3rd act is? Why must there be an act structure in the story at all? If it's because that's how all stories are, then it will be quite an innovation to break the model of story and expand it to this interactive level. If it's simply how story is defined, then let's change the definition of story or call this interactive game play something else.
I think we can see the start of this in the MMPO games we have now. A lot of them are still linear though, but the paths are getting wider. In that sense, they are still a story because the game designer has determined what the story will be. However, with exponentially increasing computing power and the innovation of a few people/companies, I do not see fully immersive storylines as an impossibility in the near future (meaning, in our lifetimes).
The total cost of his solution was the cost of the CD--your solution costs $80, and it isn't even complete.
He mentioned installing a firewall (such as ZoneAlarm) which is free and would do as effective a job as your $80 solution.
Also, one of the other large problems today is spyware (or hijackware as it should really be called), and that comes over the browser on port 80. Your $80 firewall is not going to stop that. However, the author of that article offered several free (and wise) solutions to combat this problem.
I know I'm not supposed to feed trolls, but common, at +5 I just had to respond.
If you're really pushing this $80 solution over a perfectly reasonable free solution, then you either work for D-Link or you shouldn't be taken seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ever been in the situation where a certain expensive piece of equipment would be ideal to do the job at hand, but you would probably never ever need it to use it again, thus making the purchase/rental of equipment prohibitive?"
If it's expensive (i.e. specialized), and you only have to use it once, then wouldn't rental be ideal? I would rather rent an expensive piece of equipment once, than roll my own and hope that it works (half as well as the real thing).
I guess it comes down to what your time is worth, but personally, I would want to rent in a situation like this.
I didn't read the article or the judgment, but this is common sense.
Google shouldn't have to babysit every ad that is sold. At the same time, the article summary gives the impression that Google is allowed to advertise themselves using a trademarked name, but Google is just selling ads to whomever will buy them and allowing these users to place whatever text they want.
I would be willing to bet that there is trademark infringement, but Geiko is going to have to go after the companies that are buying the ads.
You know, this seems very similar to the whole P2P argument going on. The *AA are trying to stop the vehicle of p2p when it can be used for good or evil when they should be going after the specific infringers. This seems very similar. Google just provides a vehicle for advertisement. This can be used for good or evil, but Google should not be held liable for the evil of others. And I almost wish this could be used as a sort of precedence, but I don't think our legal system would understand the logic.
Nevertheless, I digress...
Sorry if this is offtopic or considered flamebait, but...
Why does everything Google does get on the front page of Slashdot?
Don't get me wrong, I love Google, and this is a neat feature, but this makes it to the front page?
Perhaps because it's innovative? No, this has been in various software products for years (especially notable on PDAs like the iPaq). Maybe it's really novel because it's on the web? Yes, it's on the Internet now so Google should patent it!
Sorry, but I just get this feeling that when I see "The next story will be posted soon..." that it will be a story about how Google or Apple will have done something trivial (look, a 3d button on the web!) but we're all supposed to start drooling over it.
It's starting to look like there will be a pretty good format war between the two new HD optical disks in the near future. Both sides are doing an excellent job in aligning themselves with key players that will help them to get their format accepted by the public, and various people on Slashdot have mentioned the benefits of both media.
I have a pretty good hunch that we'll be seeing many drives and players that are dual format (like DVD +/ - R is now). If this does happen, it won't be so bad if there are two dominant media types, and I am sure the competition between the formats can be good for consumers. We shall see!
...and I'll bet you thought the war on drugs was bad.
I was always under the impression that laptops were supposed to be mobile (but maybe that's just me)...
It seems like this would be more useful for company systems that have highly proprietary, sensitive data on them that you wouldn't want moving around. I could see a very nice, dual G5 screaming "I'm being stolen" as the janitor carts it out with his supplies (though how it does that without a power source is beyond me, I guess you would need a secondary power source just for this system).
Also, and I'm really not trying to start a flame war here, but first, what's wrong with a janitor having a laptop, and why assume that it's a janitor stealing the laptop? I would guess that it's a disgruntled employee or just-fired employee (that's not properly escorted out) that would pull a stunt like that. And I would think that laptops are stolen from public places like libraries and parks rather and work places where I think a system like this might not be as useful.
I just bought a Tivo a month ago (thanks to the $100 rebate), and I've noticed that things happen that can royally screw up the Tivo experience. I don't think the first one is the network's fault, but when live events go over their time alloted, everything gets pushed back, and if your Tivo is going to record from 8-9pm, you will miss that 15-30 minutes the "live event" (football game) went over. I have also noticed what the front page summary mentioned, and it is incredibly annoying, but I don't think they're doing it a lot because it can mess up many other things (traditional VCR tapers). I was thinking the other day about how much effort it would be to screw over a Tivo user, and the answer is apparently not much. I expect more tricks like this will happen as more people adopt Tivo. Of course, I'm sure the manufacturers of DVRs will answer back, and as people have already mentioned, you can fix these problems if you have a dual-tuner recorder (but some of us don't have that kind of spare cash).
Yes, I remember seeing a link to the "new, improved" Google Groups Beta a few months ago when I was using the standard version. I tried it out because it was something new from Google, and I thought it would be outstanding. But I agree, the improvements really seem to be steps back, and I immediatly went back to using the old groups.google.com. I really hope all of the negative comments in the Google thread help them understand their users want these old futures, and even if they want to keep the new interface, it would be great if they could fix what they broke.
I can tell you that spyware removal is about 90% of my consulting (side) business these days. I can usually rake in an extra $300-500 / month thanks to all the spyware problems. I feel bad when I have repeat customers, but I do spend a good amount of time educating the users and immunizing their PCs, but they always find new ways of getting spyware on their computers (it always seems to be the kids and their p2p "needs"...).
:-), I'll be glad to help you anything I can.
Now, as an industry, I don't understand why so much money was spent. There are outstanding tools and tutorials on removing every type of spyware, and every it seems like all the best ones are free.
If you want any pointers or tips on spyware removal, and you don't live in my area
I worked at a law firm 4 years ago (in their IT department) and the whole legal system wrt this filing has confused me a lot. I always thought that trials were supposed to be public, but that certainly doesn't seem the case anymore. As of 2000, you had to have some sort of ID or know someone with an ID to get into a courthouse (and if you were coming as a guest of someone with an ID, you had to go through a security check, where as they could just walk in). It seems like most cases you hear about are closed to the public, and occationally the judge will allow some sort of video feed out to the press. It doesn't really bother me all that much because I don't have a huge interest in going and watching a bunch of trials, but I don't ever want to be put in a position where I'm tried for something and nobody is allowed to know anything about the case (as has happened to certain 'enemy combantants' in the last couple of years).
Whatever. It seems like judges are allowed to do whatever they want in their courtroooms, and no other branch of government gets to keep it in check (after all, an appeal judge will support his buddy judge in an appeal of a judicial decision).
In this case, I feel like the information should be made public, mostly because I think it would be great for the public to see that SCO's case is baseless and help clear the name of Linux before decision-makers decide to choose something other than Linux. I also don't see the point of making this case so private, there doesn't seem to be any sort of really good reason to make a case private (strong mafia/mob witness protection type issues, etc.). So, let's hope this filing succeeds.
Here are my couple of thoughts on the subject. First, it seems like obtaining the Helium-3 would be prohibitively expensive. We would need something like a space elevator first before we could really start shuttling this stuff back to earth. I guess the other option is to build a reactor on the moon and beam the energy back to earth (but we all know how dangerous that is based on SimCity, right?).
One thing that doesn't sit easy with me wrt this is that even though there is 10x more energy in Helium-3 on the moon compared to 'fossil' fuels here on earth, I have a feeling that we would still deplete it relatively quickly (with exponential population growth and all).
I think that ultimately the answer is going to have to be with solar energy, since that is an incredible source of energy for a long time. But, whether it's looking for efficient means of converting solar energy to something usable, or transporting the Helium-3 from the moon, it's going to take the price of gas skyrocketing before people cry for a change. I just hope that by that point it's not too late.
Our vendors are notorious for demanding superuser access to the boxes that support their applications.
There are a few things you can do in this case:
1. Get a different vendor (if the application truly does require su for vendor support).
2. Reqest different support staff from the vendor (do this if the app doesn't require su but the support staff is too lazy).
3. Learn how to support the app in-house
I am very serious on these points. You do not want to give root access to people that should not need it. If they say they need it, they have an awful application.
The place I work has a vendor area fenced off from the rest of the server room, and the vendors only have access to what they need. If they need more privileges, the IT guys watch them like a hawk until they're done.
Okay, after everybody decides to fight this one out, let's move on to some more important topics, like:
* windows vs. linux (vs. mac)
* vi vs. emacs
* creation vs. evolution
* republican vs. democrat (vs. independent)
I mean, that's all this kind of article can boil down to, so let's get the rest of today's arguments out of the way right now.
> Where do I get this nothing stuff?
I've already given you nothing. What, did you already lose it?
I had no clue the Beatles had a company called Apple Corps. There's a Wikipedia entry about it.
Regarding the case, it sounds like Apple is screwed. It sounds like they haven't won any of these cases in the past (or, at the very least they settled out of court paying large sums to the Beatles' company).
It sounds like Forbes thinks this will be one of the largest court cases in histroy (from TFA), but I'll be that Apple will end up settling out of court (probably for a large amount still, but if they habitually break these rulings/agreements, they're going to have to pay).
It doesn't look like the news hurt Apple too much today.
I have some mixed feelings about piracy. I believe that, at the core, software piracy is morally reprehensible (sorry about using the term piracy for those of you that quibble about that, but it is the term used in the summary).
As a software developer, I feel that I ought to get paid for the work I do. I do work for a company that pays me to develop, so it's really their responsibility to make sure their software isn't pirated (if they want to protect their business).
Nevertheless, I feel that piracy can be benefically to any company, regardless of size. I think that it may even help smaller companies more than larger companies, because piracy may be the vehicle in which a particual software package becomes very popular. However, one has to realize that 100% of software can't be pirated, otherwise nobody would develop anything meaningful (excepting the free software movement, but that's something pretty special [and I do wholeheartedly support it, even with LOC when I can]--I am speaking in a manner of business). Like most things in economics, it probably requires the right critical mass (you need to have the right number/ratio of people buying your software to make you profitable, but you need to have a certian number/ratio of people pirating it to make it popular).
I never think that software should ever use measures that destroy your property (digital or otherwise) as a means to prevent piracy. I am glad that the author of the software mentioned above took out the folder deleting technique--I cannot believe he did that in the first place.
I get genuinely confused about what is legal and illegal in terms of downloading copyrighted music.
This is the way I understand it (and I won't proclaim to be 100% correct, but if you follow my reasoning I think you'll agree with me here):
1: It is illegal to download copyrighted material (in the US) if you don't have a license to that material. In other words, if you already own that Weird Al CD, it's not illegal to download the songs off of that CD, but if you don't own the CD, it is illegal. The RIAA hasn't been suing downloaders because they can't prove whether or not you have a license to that song.
2. It is illegal to upload/distribute copyrighted material you don't own wihout consent of the copyright holder. The RIAA owns the copyrights of a lot of the songs on the P2P networks, so they're the ones that get to stipulate how the music gets distributed (and they obviously don't promote p2p). However, if your favorite band has explicity said (and legally you should probably get it in writing, but it seems like people follow the spirit of the law here) that sharing their music is okay (and they are the copyright holder of their music [not the RIAA]), then you are permitted to upload the music on a p2p network. Also, the RIAA can very easily see which IPs are uploading music that they have not given consent for distribution, and so those people are the users they are suing.
Sorry if that was confusing, but I hope it's an adequate explanation of copyright rights. I've seen a lot of explanations under this article that have stated that downloading isn't illegal, but the truth is that it may or may not be depending on your situation (even the country you live in).
I should be able to read it -- I have a degree in mathematics
I'm guessing your degree was for English Mathematics. This paper is clearly in Dutch Mathematics (so, just head over to Babelfish).
Conservatives believe what's good for the corporations is good for everyone. Liberals believe that what is good for the people is good for everyone.
This is not at all what I think conservatives and liberals are defined as. There are more standard definitions out there, but I think that the political climate is shifting with regard to this.
I have always considered myself a conservative, and this is why I have considered myself that. Ultimately, I fell that government should have as little interaction with the citizens as possible. I think that it's alright for the government to maintain a military, support public education, and step in where a capitalist, free-market economy breaks down or is inefficient (like a monopoly), but beyond the scope of these few things, I feel the government should stay out of my life (and there are other things than what I list of course, those are just a few examples). With this, I think, should come low taxes (just enough to support the couple of things the government does). I don't think the government should tax the rich to give to the poor (welfare, medicaid, etc.). In my view, I think a liberal would support these kinds of "social" programs, and that they ultimately support a larger government.
Now I think this is were conservatives come off sounding heartless (no national welfare), but there are other solutions than government run welfare. I believe it should be left up to local communities to take care of their needy (more efficient, more personal)--this is something I would truly be willing to support!
Now, I feel that the situation has almost reversed. Clinton, though I didn't really support him, was able to actually balance the budget, and the government didn't grow that fast. Bush, now has a budget crisis and the government is almost twice as big as when he started (due mostly to the new homeland security agencies, but still).
Socially, my views still line up with conservatives (no abortion [I believe unborn babies should be considered humans with rights], no gun control [or very little-you have to be able to fight the government if the time ever comes, and it's our 2nd amendment right!], etc), but it seems fiscally that I don't really line up with either main party (I think my views line up with the libertarians here).
Nevertheless, no matter how you view conservative vs. liberal, it has nothing to do with what's good for people vs. corporations. I think it's fine if corporations succeed in capitalism, and I think it's fine if people succeed in capitalism. Some of both will also fail. I don't think that your political slant favors one over the other though. You might argue that based on the current administration, but I also don't think that it's very "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination.
And most universities have a student legal service who will represent you for free (a lot of fine print in there though)
And one bit of fine print you'll find at every school is that these student legal services won't help you in legal action against the school (obvious conflict of interest there), so if you want to take your action against the school for violating your rights, it'll have to be on your own dime.
I was kind of wondering the same thing myself.
Do we really need _another_ story about Google so that we can rehash what has already been discussed in the other stories?
This story isn't a dup per se, but it has just as much charisma as one.
Though, now that it's gone above $5, it's possible to short it again.*
*PLEASE don't take this as investment advice, or an offer to buy/sell, or a solicitation of any services. If you do then you're a frickin' retard.
If you have an iPod and you want to get rid of it, I'll give you $100 cash. Then you're not tied into the Dell brand.
A story is a meaning applied to events after they have occurred.
Then perhaps your definition (or the standard definition, whatever) is narrow, or perhaps they just misused the term, but I don't think that is the point.
I think the point the author of the article was trying to make was that instead of having a "story", or some linear sequence of events happen to the player (the character), you will have a completely interactive world where your actions can change the world, and that changed world affects you differently now, which essentially changes the story.
If you have a wandering storyline, who cares what the 2nd or 3rd act is? Why must there be an act structure in the story at all? If it's because that's how all stories are, then it will be quite an innovation to break the model of story and expand it to this interactive level. If it's simply how story is defined, then let's change the definition of story or call this interactive game play something else.
I think we can see the start of this in the MMPO games we have now. A lot of them are still linear though, but the paths are getting wider. In that sense, they are still a story because the game designer has determined what the story will be. However, with exponentially increasing computing power and the innovation of a few people/companies, I do not see fully immersive storylines as an impossibility in the near future (meaning, in our lifetimes).
Who knows? I guess only time will tell.
+5 insightful?
The total cost of his solution was the cost of the CD--your solution costs $80, and it isn't even complete.
He mentioned installing a firewall (such as ZoneAlarm) which is free and would do as effective a job as your $80 solution.
Also, one of the other large problems today is spyware (or hijackware as it should really be called), and that comes over the browser on port 80. Your $80 firewall is not going to stop that. However, the author of that article offered several free (and wise) solutions to combat this problem.
I know I'm not supposed to feed trolls, but common, at +5 I just had to respond.
If you're really pushing this $80 solution over a perfectly reasonable free solution, then you either work for D-Link or you shouldn't be taken seriously.