Congrats on the new section, but the color scheme is killing my eyes.
Color scheme looks okay to me, nowhere near as bad as the Games ones but I'm wondering whether they really have enough Italian readers to justify a special 'it' section.
You have to get a sig if you want to be modded up instead of down. That's how people know you're a genuine slashdotter and not just someone who walked in off the street. I don't make the rules, I'm just letting you know. Probably too late now you've got a karma penalty anyway. Set up a new account. Give it a sig "I used to get modded down so I got a sig", or something, and try again.
Re:Bad music?
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Again, you need to step out of your own perspective.
Maybe you need to step into his perspective, then you can both call it crap. Why should he be the one to change if you're the one who finds the existence of differing opinions so painful?
Why is it crap just because you don't like it?
Because that is what it means for something to be "crap", that I don't like it. Are you suggesting that people should refrain from ever expressing judgments? Or is it only ones that you disagree with that are the problem?
I'm conflicted. Part of me wants to jear, because I'm told McD is evil and I should hate it without question. And part of me wants to chear, since I'm told to support leenux without question. My knees don't know which way to jerk!
This is a problem that has been struggled with in the past and, luckily for you, the accumulated wisdom of Slashdot has already arrived at a simple solution : Blame Microsoft!
My suggestion:
McDonalds Germany won't be using Linux for long once the EU accepts software patents. McDonalds will be forced to switch to Windows due to their patent on the double click and probably one on multiple key presses (aka typing) too.
And if McDonalds won't switch then Microsoft will start bundling burgers with Windows. How long can McDonalds survive against that? Why is Microfot being allowed to get away with this? They are leveraging their CRIMINAL operating system monopoly into a fast food monopoly.
Mmm, that's good enough for most purposes, but not quite right. Here's my IANAL understanding of it: Slander is transitory. Libel is in an enduring format.
You are correct.
Until the last century or so, spoken vs print was good enough without audio/video recordings, broadcasts, network TV coverage, Usenet archives, IRC logs, etc to confuse the issue.
No. Paintings can be libelous. Statues can be libelous. Semaphore messages would only usually be slanderous. Print vs speech has never been an adequate description of the difference between slander and libel.
kill all the timezones? how would you deal with daylight savings time then?
Daylight savings time would be abandoned along with the rest of it. That's the beauty of the scheme. Of course, anyone who really really really wants to would still be allowed to change their own clocks as often as they like in a demented effort to convince themselves that they get more daylight that way. I'm firmly opposed to forced psychiatric treatment for such people provided they aren't actually dangerous.
Right, those would be the ones we captured in Afghanistan, right? The ones shooting at our guys, while not wearing uniforms to seperate themselves from the civilian population (as required by the Geneva Convention)? The ones who were either members of Al-Queda or the Taliban, right?
I don't know. If you have a list of names of people held there and what they're accused of then you're way ahead of everyone else.
And just who will be labeled as a 'potential terrorist'? People of a certain ethnic background? People owning a certain amount of firearms? People who dislike the current government in power?
According to the article they were required to remove two paragraphs:
"One paragraph described the type of information that FBI agents could request under the law, while another merely listed the briefing schedule in the case, according to court documents and the original news release."
The first paragraph is the one quoted above. The other one has been resolved with the judge confirming they are permitted to publish the brieing schedule.
"Marrero ruled that the briefing schedule could be publicized, along with edited versions of other court filings. But the paragraph describing the information that can be sought remains absent."
Again, I'm only going by what the article says, if anyone knows different I'd like to hear it. On the face of it there is no reason to suppress that paragraph and I think it's worrying that the government would try to; worse if the courts enforce such an attempt.
It's also worth noting that given the time at which "USA-PATRIOT" was passed, and the speed with which it was rushed through Congress, very little meaningful opposition was possible.
I don't get that. The speed with which it was rushed through should be a reason to vote against it, even if with more time for careful analysis you might approve it.
the actual problem here is not "Bush Babies" (or any other derogatory name you can summon to describe half of the nation and their political views) but the fact that they were disclosing information to the world which is used to secure our nations people.
According to the article (yeah I read it), the paragraph they were required to remove said:
"The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Now I don't know, maybe the Washington Post made that up, but if it's true then it's pretty worrying that a statement as innocuous as that would be censored.
So what I'm wondering is, when you talk about them "disclosing information to the world which is used to secure our nations people", is it because you know something that the rest of us don't or is that just something you made up because you thought it sounded good?
The claim that you were supposedly backing up was that "If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight."
Your general position is actually a reasonable one. Why undermine it by being dishonest in your arguments? You were talking about job losses from copyrights, not from patents and trademarks. Pretending otherwise is silly and really diverts attention away from your actual point.
Are you saying that the given reasons for severing ties with Britain were not sufficient justification to make it right?
For what it's worth, I think that a large group of people that far from the "mother country" wanting to be independent is sufficient reason for them to strive to be so. And the people wishing to stay loyal, or changing their mind either way for that matter, were also 'justified' in doing so to the extent that that means anything. Life isn't black and white, I know you won't like to hear it though:)
Are you saying that the given reasons for severing ties with Britain were not sufficient justification to make it right? Or are you saying that you don't believe in the truthfulness of the written grievances against Britain which would make it right?
Neither. I'm saying that referring to a self-justificatory piece by one side or the other is close to worthless in establishing the facts of the situation. A more objective analysis MIGHT also support your position, but saying 'look, the colonists were in the right, they said so themselves!' is silly.
Technical graduate schools in the US (who often have 50% or better non-US student populations) generally prefer US students over foreign students because the US students have better preparation.
Are those 50% mostly from India and/or European countries or from elsewhere? Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, just trying to find out whether what you're saying actually contradicts the post you were replying to.
I wasn't really expecting the replies I got, a couple of downmods on any "+ funny" post I pretty much take for granted, but I didn't expect to spark a debate, and that last reply in particular seemed pretty strong. On the plus side it seems to have earned me my first freak. Which I shall also treasure.
Slashdot Mirror
The evidence is a cache of Microsoft contracts with Indian technology vendors
Isn't it strange how Slashdot's outsourcing stories are always about India and China?
They're never talking about shocking evidence of contracts with e.g. Canadian or Irish technology vendors.
Not that I'm suggesting that this is barely veiled racism. You can get modded down for being honest about that.
Congrats on the new section, but the color scheme is killing my eyes.
Color scheme looks okay to me, nowhere near as bad as the Games ones but I'm wondering whether they really have enough Italian readers to justify a special 'it' section.
You have to get a sig if you want to be modded up instead of down. That's how people know you're a genuine slashdotter and not just someone who walked in off the street. I don't make the rules, I'm just letting you know. Probably too late now you've got a karma penalty anyway. Set up a new account. Give it a sig "I used to get modded down so I got a sig", or something, and try again.
Again, you need to step out of your own perspective.
Maybe you need to step into his perspective, then you can both call it crap. Why should he be the one to change if you're the one who finds the existence of differing opinions so painful?
Why is it crap just because you don't like it?
Because that is what it means for something to be "crap", that I don't like it. Are you suggesting that people should refrain from ever expressing judgments? Or is it only ones that you disagree with that are the problem?
justgivemeanemailaccount@yahoo.com
This is a problem that has been struggled with in the past and, luckily for you, the accumulated wisdom of Slashdot has already arrived at a simple solution : Blame Microsoft!
My suggestion:
Simple, elegant, on topic.
Im not kidding get a Carry Concealed Weapon Permit.
In London???
Mmm, that's good enough for most purposes, but not quite right. Here's my IANAL understanding of it: Slander is transitory. Libel is in an enduring format.
You are correct.
Until the last century or so, spoken vs print was good enough without audio/video recordings, broadcasts, network TV coverage, Usenet archives, IRC logs, etc to confuse the issue.
No. Paintings can be libelous. Statues can be libelous. Semaphore messages would only usually be slanderous. Print vs speech has never been an adequate description of the difference between slander and libel.
I don't know whether wanting to be able to eat makes you a luddite?
He may have been using the term more literaly than you're used to but yes, it was concerns like that that motivated the luddites.
kill all the timezones? how would you deal with daylight savings time then?
Daylight savings time would be abandoned along with the rest of it. That's the beauty of the scheme. Of course, anyone who really really really wants to would still be allowed to change their own clocks as often as they like in a demented effort to convince themselves that they get more daylight that way. I'm firmly opposed to forced psychiatric treatment for such people provided they aren't actually dangerous.
Right, those would be the ones we captured in Afghanistan, right? The ones shooting at our guys, while not wearing uniforms to seperate themselves from the civilian population (as required by the Geneva Convention)? The ones who were either members of Al-Queda or the Taliban, right?
I don't know. If you have a list of names of people held there and what they're accused of then you're way ahead of everyone else.
And just who will be labeled as a 'potential terrorist'? People of a certain ethnic background? People owning a certain amount of firearms? People who dislike the current government in power?
You missed: "people who ask too many questions"
According to the article they were required to remove two paragraphs:
"One paragraph described the type of information that FBI agents could request under the law, while another merely listed the briefing schedule in the case, according to court documents and the original news release."
The first paragraph is the one quoted above. The other one has been resolved with the judge confirming they are permitted to publish the brieing schedule.
"Marrero ruled that the briefing schedule could be publicized, along with edited versions of other court filings. But the paragraph describing the information that can be sought remains absent."
Again, I'm only going by what the article says, if anyone knows different I'd like to hear it. On the face of it there is no reason to suppress that paragraph and I think it's worrying that the government would try to; worse if the courts enforce such an attempt.
It's also worth noting that given the time at which "USA-PATRIOT" was passed, and the speed with which it was rushed through Congress, very little meaningful opposition was possible.
I don't get that. The speed with which it was rushed through should be a reason to vote against it, even if with more time for careful analysis you might approve it.
the actual problem here is not "Bush Babies" (or any other derogatory name you can summon to describe half of the nation and their political views) but the fact that they were disclosing information to the world which is used to secure our nations people.
According to the article (yeah I read it), the paragraph they were required to remove said:
"The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Now I don't know, maybe the Washington Post made that up, but if it's true then it's pretty worrying that a statement as innocuous as that would be censored.
So what I'm wondering is, when you talk about them "disclosing information to the world which is used to secure our nations people", is it because you know something that the rest of us don't or is that just something you made up because you thought it sounded good?
Why is this moderated as informative?
10th day of the month. Even number userid. Post has 245 characters, starts with a vowel and ends with a consonant.
He is asking a question!!!
Doesn't mention that in the modding tables I use. Are you sure you've got the latest ones?
Good. Firstly, it improves the Google results. Secondly, it makes the next competition more challenging. What's the downside?
The claim that you were supposedly backing up was that "If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight."
Your general position is actually a reasonable one. Why undermine it by being dishonest in your arguments? You were talking about job losses from copyrights, not from patents and trademarks. Pretending otherwise is silly and really diverts attention away from your actual point.
Are you saying that the given reasons for severing ties with Britain were not sufficient justification to make it right?
:)
For what it's worth, I think that a large group of people that far from the "mother country" wanting to be independent is sufficient reason for them to strive to be so. And the people wishing to stay loyal, or changing their mind either way for that matter, were also 'justified' in doing so to the extent that that means anything. Life isn't black and white, I know you won't like to hear it though
Are you saying that the given reasons for severing ties with Britain were not sufficient justification to make it right? Or are you saying that you don't believe in the truthfulness of the written grievances against Britain which would make it right?
Neither. I'm saying that referring to a self-justificatory piece by one side or the other is close to worthless in establishing the facts of the situation. A more objective analysis MIGHT also support your position, but saying 'look, the colonists were in the right, they said so themselves!' is silly.
Technical graduate schools in the US (who often have 50% or better non-US student populations) generally prefer US students over foreign students because the US students have better preparation.
Are those 50% mostly from India and/or European countries or from elsewhere? Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, just trying to find out whether what you're saying actually contradicts the post you were replying to.
It was King George who was a "traitor" to his own colonists in the New World. Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence
So basically, your position is that we know that the colonists were in the right because, look, they wrote a document saying so!
I wasn't really expecting the replies I got, a couple of downmods on any "+ funny" post I pretty much take for granted, but I didn't expect to spark a debate, and that last reply in particular seemed pretty strong. On the plus side it seems to have earned me my first freak. Which I shall also treasure.
You mean a grateful employed public. You know, the kind that actually has money to spend?
Yes, mostly the kind that spend it according to quality and cost, not on boosting local employment levels.
Ummm thank you for your well reasoned and not at all bizarrely enraged and insulting post. I will treasure it.