My French is really rusty (but better than Babelfish?), but a bit of digging online found another source saying this: "L'amendement "VU / SACEM / BSA / FT Division Contenus" au projet de loi DADVSI cherche à assimiler à un délit de contrefaçon l'édition, la diffusion et la promotion de tout logiciel susceptible d'être utilisé pour mettre à disposition des informations protégées par le droit d'auteur et n'intégrant pas un dispositif de contrôle et de traçage de l'usage privé."
Which I translate vaguely as: "The "VU / SACEM / BSA / FT Division Contenus" of the DADVSI legal project hopes to gather under the offense of counterfeiting the spread or promotion of all software susceptible to being used to disseminate information protected by copyright, and which does not incorporate DRM." source
I could be wrong, though...rusty, as I said. In any case, it doesn't seem that different from other laws passed elsewhere, and the firefox/OpenOffice people could relax? Someone else can confirm/refute.
This seems like another example of someone who completely doesn't understand the internet. Sure, he had an erroneous (libelous?) biography published on Wikipedia. Fucking change it. That is the entire point of Wikipedia, as others have already pointed out. And Wikipedia IS a wonderful - yes, AND flawed - research tool. Nobody says cite Wikipedia in your dissertation and be done with it. It's a starting point, as any Encyclopedia should be, and it's made pretty clear that anyone CAN edit the damn thing. So you take it with a grain of salt, and corroborate your information elsewhere.
Instead, this guy does the going-over-peoples'-heads thing, pulls strings here and there to get things removed from websites, and considers going after an ISP because that evil intarnet needs to be controlled. It's like wanting to know who scrawled naughty messages about you on the blackboard before you walked into class in 3rd grade, when the fucking eraser is in front of your eyes and you're failing to use it.
I was hoping to see something redemptive about the article, but honestly, all I saw was whining. Unfortunately, whining of the dangerous kind, because it comes from a guy who has lots of strings to pull, and who is completely out of touch with the world he lives in. My $0.02.
That's what I'm doing. I finished two novels in the past year, and am working on a third. Maybe they'll never see publication, but it can be done on a full time job schedule if you're disciplined.
I don't understand where this "will I look like the donor?" comes from. It's just a bunch of skin, maybe a bit of musculature? Even if you have the wrinkles (from the musculature) that the donor has, it will be on your own - completely different - skull. I don't see how you'd look anything like the donor. Nor would you look exactly like you did before - but you'd probably look better than being featureless and/or heavily scarred.
That would be pretty funny. Or a full house built with these things...suddenly you measure your rooms in tera- or petabytes instead of square feet. Think of all the pr0n in the walls...
Is it really cheaper? I've seen analyses in similar situations before (like that whole Cumbre Viejos thing where people keep saying "just blast the mountain apart before it slides into the sea") and it's not always the case. Would like to see someone who knows a bit about this comment.
I think since I started "blogging," I might have posted 80 articles, and that has been more than a year ago. So out of 365+ days, I post maybe once or twice a week on average.
I could have written more often, but then my blog would quickly degenerate being from a semi-serious source of information on various topics (ranging from book reviews to rants about spam blacklisting services, probably my most popular post ever by number of comments and search engine hits) to being your classic LiveJournal angst-and-drama-fest.
You won't find a post about what I had for breakfast on my blog. I think if I forced myself to post every single day, the quality would go way, way down. So, I completely agree. It's best in the long run to post when you have something useful to say, otherwise hold off. Incidentally, it's also the reason I don't post comments on/. more often. If I don't have something I feel is worth saying, I don't say anything.
I don't really foresee any changes of that sort to the Bittorrent we all know and currently use. What I expect to see is HollywoodNet or RIAANet or whatever, where there is a secure version for distribution of content by those organizations to their subscribers. If you think about it, part of Bittorrent's strength is that it works even with smaller numbers of users. So if only 20 people around the globe are downloading Mirrormask or the latest 50 Cent album, there is still a net bandwidth savings for the provider and some modest speed advantages for the downloaders.
I don't think these networks will replace Bittorrent itself though. I think Bittorrent proper will continue to plod alongside as the same unsecured network we're all familiar with.
I think Bittorrent is planning to team up with content distributors of all types, and develop "official" systems for various networks to deliver content to their subscribers. The value, I think, lies in the fact that Bittorrent can help content distributors secure their content, which is something that, AFAIK, free Bittorrent doesn't currently do well (short of obscurity). If Bittorrent can come up with a way to help film distributors deliver movies online without them being pirated, or do a better version of Steam, or push the latest albums securely (think iTunes maybe), there is a lot to be made for content providers AND Bittorrent itself.
Of course, I could be totally missing it, but it seems not implausible to me.
Whenever I run into an ad online, I'm compelled to view the source, close down my browser session, and tweak my userContent.css/hostperm.1 to block it.
Whoa. Never accidentally transpose two letters in that "hostperm" part.
The guy is basically whining because he isn't with a big enough press outfit to get VIP attention at the show. If he cares that much, maybe he should go work for one of those "big media companies that are buying up media companies" [my paraphrase] that he is crying about.
While the complaints he has may well be legitimate, his suggestions are basically "what would make my job as a reporter easier" and less about what would make the show better, in my honest opinion.
...as others have commented, what happens when the power's cut and/or the batteries die? This is all nifty, but there is a lot to be said for the biomechanical lock (powered by a human arm, turning a key in a mechanical lock). I'd hope that the door at least has a non-electronic backup lock, although that wouldn't help much if your keys got locked inside...
Not true. If you play around with it long enough (I did), it will just say something along the lines of "We're sorry that you don't like this song. Unfortunately, our license requires that you may only skip so many songs per hour. As soon as this song finishes playing, we will try to add a song that you will like better." Bla bla. So you have to listen to the song even if you mod it "Don't Like."
I know most of the/. response seems to be positive, but I didn't find it impressive. I spent about 30 minutes playing around with this last week, and I discovered one good band from it. It justified my time, but at the same time, it convinced me that I'll never pay for this system.
Apart from the fact that the music industry has their claws so deeply sunk into this that you can only skip so many songs per hour (majorly annoying!), the recommendation system does not work very well. For instance, I was looking for bands similar to the Canadian Matthew Good Band, and most of the system's recommendations were other MGB songs. It eventually got desperate and started recommending stuff like Creed to me, which I really hate. Granted, I haven't actually heard many bands similar to MGB - which is why I always try them first on music recommendation engines.
A bit of time experimenting with goth rock (they didn't even have Tapping The Vein in their database, which is pretty good and has a near-mainstream sound) and trance (Armin van Buuren) and I didn't get any recommendations worth the time spent on those categories.
Overall, I just wasn't impressed. It seems like the sort of task that humans will be okay at, but that a really advanced computer filtering system will eventually be better on. Plus, it would be nice to see more small/independent artists in the system; I've already heard most mainstream bands in the genres I like, so showing me Yet Another Mainstream Band doesn't help much.
I'm not exactly sure that "bettering oneself" necessarily has any relation to "survival of the fittest" - many people's idea of "bettering" themselves have led them to early deaths, like some of the great explorers. In terms of sheer survival of the fittest, the person who doesn't stick his neck out too far and manages to safely pass on his genes to the next generation the most times is often [but not always] the fittest, and that has little to do with bettering himself.
Slashdot Mirror
My French is really rusty (but better than Babelfish?), but a bit of digging online found another source saying this: "L'amendement "VU / SACEM / BSA / FT Division Contenus" au projet de loi DADVSI cherche à assimiler à un délit de contrefaçon l'édition, la diffusion et la promotion de tout logiciel susceptible d'être utilisé pour mettre à disposition des informations protégées par le droit d'auteur et n'intégrant pas un dispositif de contrôle et de traçage de l'usage privé."
Which I translate vaguely as: "The "VU / SACEM / BSA / FT Division Contenus" of the DADVSI legal project hopes to gather under the offense of counterfeiting the spread or promotion of all software susceptible to being used to disseminate information protected by copyright, and which does not incorporate DRM." source
I could be wrong, though...rusty, as I said. In any case, it doesn't seem that different from other laws passed elsewhere, and the firefox/OpenOffice people could relax? Someone else can confirm/refute.
This seems like another example of someone who completely doesn't understand the internet. Sure, he had an erroneous (libelous?) biography published on Wikipedia. Fucking change it. That is the entire point of Wikipedia, as others have already pointed out. And Wikipedia IS a wonderful - yes, AND flawed - research tool. Nobody says cite Wikipedia in your dissertation and be done with it. It's a starting point, as any Encyclopedia should be, and it's made pretty clear that anyone CAN edit the damn thing. So you take it with a grain of salt, and corroborate your information elsewhere.
Instead, this guy does the going-over-peoples'-heads thing, pulls strings here and there to get things removed from websites, and considers going after an ISP because that evil intarnet needs to be controlled. It's like wanting to know who scrawled naughty messages about you on the blackboard before you walked into class in 3rd grade, when the fucking eraser is in front of your eyes and you're failing to use it.
I was hoping to see something redemptive about the article, but honestly, all I saw was whining. Unfortunately, whining of the dangerous kind, because it comes from a guy who has lots of strings to pull, and who is completely out of touch with the world he lives in. My $0.02.
That's what I'm doing. I finished two novels in the past year, and am working on a third. Maybe they'll never see publication, but it can be done on a full time job schedule if you're disciplined.
I don't understand where this "will I look like the donor?" comes from. It's just a bunch of skin, maybe a bit of musculature? Even if you have the wrinkles (from the musculature) that the donor has, it will be on your own - completely different - skull. I don't see how you'd look anything like the donor. Nor would you look exactly like you did before - but you'd probably look better than being featureless and/or heavily scarred.
Point it out AFTER it's fixed. Thanks, guys! :-P
That would be pretty funny. Or a full house built with these things...suddenly you measure your rooms in tera- or petabytes instead of square feet. Think of all the pr0n in the walls...
..should be Cumbre Vieja.
Is it really cheaper? I've seen analyses in similar situations before (like that whole Cumbre Viejos thing where people keep saying "just blast the mountain apart before it slides into the sea") and it's not always the case. Would like to see someone who knows a bit about this comment.
"While my own review of it is tardy and still forthcoming..."
:-D
Seems like the reviewer failed to RTFA, considering that it's Chapter 13: How to make things happen!
I guess there's some truth to the sallow or pasty scientist. Some people need to get out more!
(Yes, I know, eyes too close together, bla bla...) Still.;-)
"...someday I'll find a way to lure that sexy woman on the corner into my house and use them..."
I believe "a way" is commonly called "cash" if she's on the corner?
...in another post.
Pillow transactions with the tooth fairy. Yeah baby!
Completely agree. I still can't quite figure out what they intended to say. "Pilot Zombie Targeting" maybe? I don't know. Such an awful headline.
I think since I started "blogging," I might have posted 80 articles, and that has been more than a year ago. So out of 365+ days, I post maybe once or twice a week on average.
/. more often. If I don't have something I feel is worth saying, I don't say anything.
I could have written more often, but then my blog would quickly degenerate being from a semi-serious source of information on various topics (ranging from book reviews to rants about spam blacklisting services, probably my most popular post ever by number of comments and search engine hits) to being your classic LiveJournal angst-and-drama-fest.
You won't find a post about what I had for breakfast on my blog. I think if I forced myself to post every single day, the quality would go way, way down. So, I completely agree. It's best in the long run to post when you have something useful to say, otherwise hold off. Incidentally, it's also the reason I don't post comments on
I don't really foresee any changes of that sort to the Bittorrent we all know and currently use. What I expect to see is HollywoodNet or RIAANet or whatever, where there is a secure version for distribution of content by those organizations to their subscribers. If you think about it, part of Bittorrent's strength is that it works even with smaller numbers of users. So if only 20 people around the globe are downloading Mirrormask or the latest 50 Cent album, there is still a net bandwidth savings for the provider and some modest speed advantages for the downloaders.
I don't think these networks will replace Bittorrent itself though. I think Bittorrent proper will continue to plod alongside as the same unsecured network we're all familiar with.
I think Bittorrent is planning to team up with content distributors of all types, and develop "official" systems for various networks to deliver content to their subscribers. The value, I think, lies in the fact that Bittorrent can help content distributors secure their content, which is something that, AFAIK, free Bittorrent doesn't currently do well (short of obscurity). If Bittorrent can come up with a way to help film distributors deliver movies online without them being pirated, or do a better version of Steam, or push the latest albums securely (think iTunes maybe), there is a lot to be made for content providers AND Bittorrent itself.
Of course, I could be totally missing it, but it seems not implausible to me.
"And then Mel Gibson can play an ex-help-desk-guy-turned-hero whose Mac was killed by software pirates in the movie version."
Mind if I use this to write a short story sometime?:-) I'd email you but can't find a link.
Isn't it customary to just grow a pair?
Whoa. Never accidentally transpose two letters in that "hostperm" part.
Yes, I have a sick mind.
The guy is basically whining because he isn't with a big enough press outfit to get VIP attention at the show. If he cares that much, maybe he should go work for one of those "big media companies that are buying up media companies" [my paraphrase] that he is crying about.
While the complaints he has may well be legitimate, his suggestions are basically "what would make my job as a reporter easier" and less about what would make the show better, in my honest opinion.
...as others have commented, what happens when the power's cut and/or the batteries die? This is all nifty, but there is a lot to be said for the biomechanical lock (powered by a human arm, turning a key in a mechanical lock). I'd hope that the door at least has a non-electronic backup lock, although that wouldn't help much if your keys got locked inside...
Not true. If you play around with it long enough (I did), it will just say something along the lines of "We're sorry that you don't like this song. Unfortunately, our license requires that you may only skip so many songs per hour. As soon as this song finishes playing, we will try to add a song that you will like better." Bla bla. So you have to listen to the song even if you mod it "Don't Like."
I know most of the /. response seems to be positive, but I didn't find it impressive. I spent about 30 minutes playing around with this last week, and I discovered one good band from it. It justified my time, but at the same time, it convinced me that I'll never pay for this system.
Apart from the fact that the music industry has their claws so deeply sunk into this that you can only skip so many songs per hour (majorly annoying!), the recommendation system does not work very well. For instance, I was looking for bands similar to the Canadian Matthew Good Band, and most of the system's recommendations were other MGB songs. It eventually got desperate and started recommending stuff like Creed to me, which I really hate. Granted, I haven't actually heard many bands similar to MGB - which is why I always try them first on music recommendation engines.
A bit of time experimenting with goth rock (they didn't even have Tapping The Vein in their database, which is pretty good and has a near-mainstream sound) and trance (Armin van Buuren) and I didn't get any recommendations worth the time spent on those categories.
Overall, I just wasn't impressed. It seems like the sort of task that humans will be okay at, but that a really advanced computer filtering system will eventually be better on. Plus, it would be nice to see more small/independent artists in the system; I've already heard most mainstream bands in the genres I like, so showing me Yet Another Mainstream Band doesn't help much.
I'm not exactly sure that "bettering oneself" necessarily has any relation to "survival of the fittest" - many people's idea of "bettering" themselves have led them to early deaths, like some of the great explorers. In terms of sheer survival of the fittest, the person who doesn't stick his neck out too far and manages to safely pass on his genes to the next generation the most times is often [but not always] the fittest, and that has little to do with bettering himself.