Dumb question, but this is a Microsoft product we are talking about, and not one of the better ones... how do you know it hasn't gone behind your back and created a pagefile somewhere?
That's a funny spiel given that she now records for a label that is distributed by one of the "big four". I guess that says a lot about her integrity and commitment to her supposed cause. She hates the industry so much that she's giving it more money for doing even less for her than what they did before when she called it "piracy".
You wanna tell me you never had a job in a big company and never hated the company and every day at work and every hour of overtime you had to do?
I sure have. But I need the money. Why don't you quit your job and then take down the RIAA and all the other big corps for us? No?
I don't want to go all PETA or anything, I love food animals and the way their meat tastes, but this is just exceedingly assinine:
"The sad thing about the articles is that the beauty of the mathematics used to create and train the models is totally ignored."
I would have thought the sad part of the article is that we're still experimenting on live animals, presumably with some sort of horrible animal torture going on. Yes, there are tremendous benefits from this research. Yes, there is also a cost. And that cost is not, believe or not, that we might "miss some beautiful mathematics".
If you're an anarcho-capitalist, then you would believe and approve that the best way to capitalise on anything that is "property" is to steal it where you can, thus transferring it's benefit from someone else to yourself. Since you don't believe in laws and believe morality will balance itself through anarchy, you should be fine with this. After all, you accept that others are free to do the same to you. In the case of intellectual property, especially so, as no harm comes to you or other parties by it's free dissemination.
Therefore, you are not a firm believer in property rights. Or, you don't know what anarcho-capitalism really means. Either way, you've disqualified yourself from posting the article you just did.
Well, frankly, if you claim to be superman you'll be immediately sued by both the publishing industry representing DC comics and the MPAA for copyright infringement and something to do with trademarks. And maybe they'll try to arrest you for identity theft too.
But frankly you would do quite well with just "Ray, this is what I propose: I will assume the role of an alcoholic" because that's my plan as well.
The word of the law seems to have failed the RIAA. As a result of this, the RIAA should now have a decent argument to bring to congress to demonstrate that the current laws do not adequately protect corporate business interests.
Won't this just encourage, even justify the cartel to further lobby congress to pass more draconian anti-digital copying laws?
In my experience, corporations and governments do not change to meet the intentions of the laws, the laws change to meet the intentions of corporations and governments.. and the executives of those bodies, whatever their motivations may be.
Well, if you ask me, Do Not Call, Do Not E-mail, and Do Not Track registrations are an excellent way to identify suspicious individuals who are trying to hide something.
I would imagine that most US law enforcement agencies and secret police organisations are keenly interested in harvesting the details of these individuals in these conveniently located registries. I imagine they already do so.
I think the next logical step is to require fingerprinting for the criminals, err, suspects that sign up to these law evasion registries.
One of the best ways to become a target is to jump up and down loudly shouting "Not me! Don't make me a target!".
My objection to Dawkins principles is that he suggests that all theories of god should be rejected without any critical assessment.
No he doesn't... it doesn't take very long to critically assess any "god" theory anyway, does it?
"So, you're telling me there's a bloke up in the sky that made everything and is all knowing and all powerful." "Yes! Believe!" "Can you prove it?" "No." "Can you even cite any examples or evidence?" "No." "Do you ever intend to?" "No."
See? It doesn't take long.
Now, ask any scientist about theories they might have, and the answers regarding evidence and proof will be quite different.
Security through obscurity is not the best method of protecting your business. So, you run an O/S that hackers consider so insignificant they don't expend the effort to compromise it, even if the figures are starting to indicate it may be easier to do so than Windows.
I am sure that's not how Apple wants to market their products:
"Hi, I'm a Mac. I'm safe because muggers take one look at me, and decide I'm not worth the economic effort to mug me, no matter how easy it is."
You make a joke, but it's true. The Vista installer is image based, it dumps then customises an image, rather than building the OS file by file like previous installers. So, Vista doesn't install on Vista. Try upgrading (Installing Vista on the back of XP) rather than a clean build of Vista and you'll see the difference.
Likewise, the service pack has to build itself file by file on top of Vista, so it takes longer. I'm not sure it should take as exceedingly long as it does, however... Vista is very bloaty.
According to the Microsoft letters that were released on the discovery processes for the "Vista Capable" debacle, Microsoft releases their alphas as betas and their betas as release candidates for a specific business reason.
Unlike most other software companies, Microsoft depends on other developers, both hardware and software, to ensure their own products are going to interoperate. Microsoft has to push betas as RC's to force companies to start developing and releasing drivers. The RC's are *supposed* to be fixed from the HAL perspective to allow drivers designed for RC's to be fully functional in the RTM version.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I can understand why Microsoft do what they do. The alternative, releasing Vista with absolutely zero hardware/software support, would have killed Vista. And yes, driver support was awful at the time of release, but I can only imagine how much worse it could have been.
It's not good for business. It's good for the user. But the AIM model relies on advertising revenue from the AIM client. If you encourage people to use something other than your spammy ad-ridden client, you get less ad clicks and less revenue.
Damn M$, I hate them, always screwing the little guys! Didn't they get done in court for doing stuff like this? Now they're at it again, putting hidden APIs in Windows so that Safa... oh wait...
So, filters that can easily be bypassed will be sold to parents as 100% protection for their children.
Instead of maintaining the proper sense of ongoing risk to children through internet use that would encourage good parental supervision, parents will buy this service and leave children unsupervised because it has a "G" rating.
Yes, because copyright infringement = stealing, so if you are careless and put your music in the shared folder, someone might steal it, then you won't have it anymore. Right?
Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
The Trillian guys have gone crazy in the Alpha builds adding support for video/voice etc on the different networks. It looks very promising at this stage.
OSS messaging clients always seem to scrape in with the bare minimum of compatibility for each network.
I don't understand why they're so far behind, the Trillian guys are working on very few resources from what I can see and they're producing an incredibly promising product.
Why do you assume there are no OSS solutions instead of spending 2 minutes with Google?
I guess I didn't clarify my definition of "adequate". The OSS solutions are in my opinion inadequate.
Pidgin, GAIM et al for some reason refuse to support features that aren't offered universally by IM networks. For example, Yahoo! has chat rooms, ICQ has "find a random user" functions, MSN has video chat. But because MSN doesn't have chat rooms, GAIM won't support connecting to the Yahoo chat rooms. Because Yahoo! doesn't have "find a random user", GAIM won't support that function for the ICQ network... ICQ and MSN and Yahoo all use different video protocols - the OSS solution to this problem? Don't use any! You end up cutting off a huge amount of functionality that these networks have and I have no idea why.
The trillian developers have tried to include functionality from every network where it applies, whereas the OSS community seems to scoff and ignore any functionality that is not universally supported. As a result, open source clients are deficient in each case compared to the native messaging client, and when compared to Trillian, deficient as a messaging amalgamation tool.
I want to believe in the OSS message, that's why I'm asking. Why isn't there better compatibility with each of the features the messaging networks use? Trillian can do it. Why can't OSS?
I loved 3E. I wasn't so happy about 3.5, as a lot of people will tell you, the changes weren't enough to warrant the update, but just enough to mess up compatibility between 3.5 and 3E.
Having said that, there's a lot of people who don't like it! All AD&D 2nd Ed players... But the only reason you might not like 3E is because you never tried it.
It's much, much simpler than 2nd Ed ever was. The ruleset is more orthogonal, anyone who's a programmer will appreciate the value of a consistent central rule set at the core of the system. 2nd Ed was a big mish-mash of rules that differed dramatically depending on where you look.
They also designed 3E more as a tabletop game, it sounds bad but it works really well. Level advancement is quicker and more consistent. When you're a casual kind of gamer it means you can get players through level progression quickly... and hit the end game roughly about the time that players give up on a campaign anyway. The difference is that in 3E, you've gone from low to high level, but in 2nd you'd probably still be killing kobolds.
I'm hoping 4th Ed will continue the tradition that 3E set, keeping the core rules simple and adding complexity only as much as you're comfortable as a DM or player to do, and being balanced around the way most people play the game.
Thunderbird is a great email client, but I've never seen an open source IM client that's adequately compatible with "the big four", ICQ, MSN, Yahoo and AIM. Trillian does it quite well, they are adding more and more compatibility with the alpha.
Is there a reason the guys at Cerulean can do IM so well where the open source community hasn't to date?
Queen of Australia ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952)
The title Queen of Australia is distinct from the Queen of England/UK. It just happens that they are co-incidentally the same person, and it's likely they will continue to be so. She could choose to abdicate the role of Queen of Australia onto Camilla Parker-Bowles-Horseyface and we'd have pretty much no say in the matter... but I daresay we'd referendum around to a republic shortly afterwards if she did do such a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Dumb question, but this is a Microsoft product we are talking about, and not one of the better ones... how do you know it hasn't gone behind your back and created a pagefile somewhere?
That's a funny spiel given that she now records for a label that is distributed by one of the "big four". I guess that says a lot about her integrity and commitment to her supposed cause. She hates the industry so much that she's giving it more money for doing even less for her than what they did before when she called it "piracy".
You wanna tell me you never had a job in a big company and never hated the company and every day at work and every hour of overtime you had to do?
I sure have. But I need the money. Why don't you quit your job and then take down the RIAA and all the other big corps for us? No?
DRM, lawsuits, propaganda, legislation, buying politicians: these are the death knells of a business.
I thought that was the recipe for success! Because all the successful businesses do it...
I don't want to go all PETA or anything, I love food animals and the way their meat tastes, but this is just exceedingly assinine:
"The sad thing about the articles is that the beauty of the mathematics used to create and train the models is totally ignored."
I would have thought the sad part of the article is that we're still experimenting on live animals, presumably with some sort of horrible animal torture going on. Yes, there are tremendous benefits from this research. Yes, there is also a cost. And that cost is not, believe or not, that we might "miss some beautiful mathematics".
If you're an anarcho-capitalist, then you would believe and approve that the best way to capitalise on anything that is "property" is to steal it where you can, thus transferring it's benefit from someone else to yourself. Since you don't believe in laws and believe morality will balance itself through anarchy, you should be fine with this. After all, you accept that others are free to do the same to you. In the case of intellectual property, especially so, as no harm comes to you or other parties by it's free dissemination.
Therefore, you are not a firm believer in property rights. Or, you don't know what anarcho-capitalism really means. Either way, you've disqualified yourself from posting the article you just did.
"weighing roughly 71 million kilograms."
No, no it does not have that weight in it's current position. It may have that mass, however...
Well, frankly, if you claim to be superman you'll be immediately sued by both the publishing industry representing DC comics and the MPAA for copyright infringement and something to do with trademarks. And maybe they'll try to arrest you for identity theft too.
But frankly you would do quite well with just "Ray, this is what I propose: I will assume the role of an alcoholic" because that's my plan as well.
Screw you, it was a good point. Now I'm going to go have a cold glass of refreshing Hoover and then go Coke the living room.
The word of the law seems to have failed the RIAA. As a result of this, the RIAA should now have a decent argument to bring to congress to demonstrate that the current laws do not adequately protect corporate business interests.
Won't this just encourage, even justify the cartel to further lobby congress to pass more draconian anti-digital copying laws?
In my experience, corporations and governments do not change to meet the intentions of the laws, the laws change to meet the intentions of corporations and governments.. and the executives of those bodies, whatever their motivations may be.
Well, if you ask me, Do Not Call, Do Not E-mail, and Do Not Track registrations are an excellent way to identify suspicious individuals who are trying to hide something.
I would imagine that most US law enforcement agencies and secret police organisations are keenly interested in harvesting the details of these individuals in these conveniently located registries. I imagine they already do so.
I think the next logical step is to require fingerprinting for the criminals, err, suspects that sign up to these law evasion registries.
One of the best ways to become a target is to jump up and down loudly shouting "Not me! Don't make me a target!".
The RIAA has initiated court action against the US Department of Defense for unauthorised reproduction of a copyrighted work...
My objection to Dawkins principles is that he suggests that all theories of god should be rejected without any critical assessment.
No he doesn't... it doesn't take very long to critically assess any "god" theory anyway, does it?
"So, you're telling me there's a bloke up in the sky that made everything and is all knowing and all powerful."
"Yes! Believe!"
"Can you prove it?"
"No."
"Can you even cite any examples or evidence?"
"No."
"Do you ever intend to?"
"No."
See? It doesn't take long.
Now, ask any scientist about theories they might have, and the answers regarding evidence and proof will be quite different.
That explains all those zombie Mac OS X machines.
Security through obscurity is not the best method of protecting your business. So, you run an O/S that hackers consider so insignificant they don't expend the effort to compromise it, even if the figures are starting to indicate it may be easier to do so than Windows.
I am sure that's not how Apple wants to market their products:
"Hi, I'm a Mac. I'm safe because muggers take one look at me, and decide I'm not worth the economic effort to mug me, no matter how easy it is."
You make a joke, but it's true. The Vista installer is image based, it dumps then customises an image, rather than building the OS file by file like previous installers. So, Vista doesn't install on Vista. Try upgrading (Installing Vista on the back of XP) rather than a clean build of Vista and you'll see the difference.
Likewise, the service pack has to build itself file by file on top of Vista, so it takes longer. I'm not sure it should take as exceedingly long as it does, however... Vista is very bloaty.
According to the Microsoft letters that were released on the discovery processes for the "Vista Capable" debacle, Microsoft releases their alphas as betas and their betas as release candidates for a specific business reason.
Unlike most other software companies, Microsoft depends on other developers, both hardware and software, to ensure their own products are going to interoperate. Microsoft has to push betas as RC's to force companies to start developing and releasing drivers. The RC's are *supposed* to be fixed from the HAL perspective to allow drivers designed for RC's to be fully functional in the RTM version.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I can understand why Microsoft do what they do. The alternative, releasing Vista with absolutely zero hardware/software support, would have killed Vista. And yes, driver support was awful at the time of release, but I can only imagine how much worse it could have been.
Never tell me the odds!
Chewie, take the professor out back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
It's not good for business. It's good for the user. But the AIM model relies on advertising revenue from the AIM client. If you encourage people to use something other than your spammy ad-ridden client, you get less ad clicks and less revenue.
Damn M$, I hate them, always screwing the little guys! Didn't they get done in court for doing stuff like this? Now they're at it again, putting hidden APIs in Windows so that Safa... oh wait...
So, filters that can easily be bypassed will be sold to parents as 100% protection for their children.
Instead of maintaining the proper sense of ongoing risk to children through internet use that would encourage good parental supervision, parents will buy this service and leave children unsupervised because it has a "G" rating.
That seems dangerous to me!
Yes, because copyright infringement = stealing, so if you are careless and put your music in the shared folder, someone might steal it, then you won't have it anymore. Right?
Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
The Trillian guys have gone crazy in the Alpha builds adding support for video/voice etc on the different networks. It looks very promising at this stage.
OSS messaging clients always seem to scrape in with the bare minimum of compatibility for each network.
I don't understand why they're so far behind, the Trillian guys are working on very few resources from what I can see and they're producing an incredibly promising product.
OSS gives you text messaging and that's it.
Why do you assume there are no OSS solutions instead of spending 2 minutes with Google?
I guess I didn't clarify my definition of "adequate". The OSS solutions are in my opinion inadequate.
Pidgin, GAIM et al for some reason refuse to support features that aren't offered universally by IM networks. For example, Yahoo! has chat rooms, ICQ has "find a random user" functions, MSN has video chat. But because MSN doesn't have chat rooms, GAIM won't support connecting to the Yahoo chat rooms. Because Yahoo! doesn't have "find a random user", GAIM won't support that function for the ICQ network... ICQ and MSN and Yahoo all use different video protocols - the OSS solution to this problem? Don't use any! You end up cutting off a huge amount of functionality that these networks have and I have no idea why.
The trillian developers have tried to include functionality from every network where it applies, whereas the OSS community seems to scoff and ignore any functionality that is not universally supported. As a result, open source clients are deficient in each case compared to the native messaging client, and when compared to Trillian, deficient as a messaging amalgamation tool.
I want to believe in the OSS message, that's why I'm asking. Why isn't there better compatibility with each of the features the messaging networks use? Trillian can do it. Why can't OSS?
I loved 3E. I wasn't so happy about 3.5, as a lot of people will tell you, the changes weren't enough to warrant the update, but just enough to mess up compatibility between 3.5 and 3E.
Having said that, there's a lot of people who don't like it! All AD&D 2nd Ed players... But the only reason you might not like 3E is because you never tried it.
It's much, much simpler than 2nd Ed ever was. The ruleset is more orthogonal, anyone who's a programmer will appreciate the value of a consistent central rule set at the core of the system. 2nd Ed was a big mish-mash of rules that differed dramatically depending on where you look.
They also designed 3E more as a tabletop game, it sounds bad but it works really well. Level advancement is quicker and more consistent. When you're a casual kind of gamer it means you can get players through level progression quickly... and hit the end game roughly about the time that players give up on a campaign anyway. The difference is that in 3E, you've gone from low to high level, but in 2nd you'd probably still be killing kobolds.
I'm hoping 4th Ed will continue the tradition that 3E set, keeping the core rules simple and adding complexity only as much as you're comfortable as a DM or player to do, and being balanced around the way most people play the game.
Thunderbird is a great email client, but I've never seen an open source IM client that's adequately compatible with "the big four", ICQ, MSN, Yahoo and AIM. Trillian does it quite well, they are adding more and more compatibility with the alpha.
Is there a reason the guys at Cerulean can do IM so well where the open source community hasn't to date?
You've answered the question yourself there:
Queen of Australia ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952)
The title Queen of Australia is distinct from the Queen of England/UK. It just happens that they are co-incidentally the same person, and it's likely they will continue to be so. She could choose to abdicate the role of Queen of Australia onto Camilla Parker-Bowles-Horseyface and we'd have pretty much no say in the matter... but I daresay we'd referendum around to a republic shortly afterwards if she did do such a thing.