"Garfinkel holds three degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a masters of science degree from Columbia University. He is a member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), and has a certification in computer security (CISSP) from International Information Systems Security Certifications Consortium."
Clearly the parts they are pre-loading ARE finished.
you'll probably just end up downloading it a couple times as they fix bugs, change the media, and recompile everything...
Do you honestly think they are going to have thousands of people downloading a 1GB pre-cache of material if there was even the slightest chance that that material is going to change? It would be a total waste of money on their part.
Guaranteed... this pre-load is all the content of the game that is not going to change one iota. They'll still work on the engine and give that to you when it's ready to ship.
A public library is only one example. My point was you don't have to be rich to have internet access, you just have to have ACCESS to someone who has internet access. So this idea is not useless even though it is targeted at poorer areas.
What could perhaps improve the situation is if copyright law were changed so that the author or artist cannot legally give up their ownership over their work.
Why restrict what someone can do with their own work. If someone WANTS to sign a contract giving full ownership of their creation to someone else, they should be allowed to. However, they should not be allowed to give ownership of a copyrighted work beyond their death, in my opinion.
A person and their family can have a realistic expectation to profit from their creations during the life of the author, but beyond that is crazy.
This would allow artists to go to multiple producers / distributors to release their songs, and put them in competition with each other.
They can do that already if they wish. Why do we need a law forcing them to do this?
As it is, there's really no competition in the music industry. If you like artist X, you have to fork over money to company Y. There's no alternative to get the same thing you want. It's one big mass-monopoly.
There's no alternative? You can turn on the radio or attend one of their concerts. You can buy their CD used.
That artist agreed to let that company distribute their works, they didn't have to agree to it, but they did.
Similarly, I don't feel file sharing should be illegal. The music companies need to figure out a way to make money by offering more bang for your buck and embracing digital music distribution.
I'd think that the problem with using the internet to combat censorship and corruption is that the censored and oppressed people are precisely those without internet access. Those who have it are already in the privileged classes.
False. All you need is one person or group of people with the power to connect to the internet and the desire to let others use it.
Any vagrant can walk into a public library and use the internet. Are they suddenly part of a privileged class?
Everyone supports copyrights because they believe it will benefit the artists. It doesn't.
Bullshit, and I'll prove it forthwith.
The companies own everything the artists produce as soon as a contract is signed.
Please note these key words.
Copyrights only benefit the corporate tag-alongs and, as such, need to be removed or revised.
Do you think the artist could sign a contract (and thus benefit) if they did not have the copyrights to sell to this huge evil company?
Copyrights only benefit the corporate tag-alongs and, as such, need to be removed or revised.
I agree that copyright law is out of control. I would support copyrights that last for a certain period of time, up until the death of the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the work. Perhaps not even that long, but certainly no longer.
"We need to enforce laws to protect the profit of CEOs, VPs, and executives who already have base salaries of multi-millions per year!" Who else agrees?
Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "companies are evil" philosophy that is popular among some of you here.
These companies make money, and that money means they can hire people to work for them, they can pay dividends to their shareholders, and they can continue to sell products to people that want to buy them.
Note that I do not support this tax relief system for corporations (I think it sucks in a monumental way) so no corporate greed monger flames are needed.
So you honestly believe that corporations pay taxes?
Taxes on businesses are just indirect taxes on regular people. Businesses necessarily pass these expenses on to consumers (higher prices on goods), investors (less money for dividends), and employees (less money to hire new employees or pay existing employees better wages).
This is just one reason why I support the FairTax.
If it does something out of the goodness of its heart that costs its ahreholders money, then its been negligent.
Perhaps, but how the hell would you ever prove this?
Target stores donate a percentage of profits to local charities. That is technically costing the company profits. Are they negligent? Probably not, people may tend to do more business with them because of their charity. I believe it would be impossible to prove negligence in any case, so your point here is moot.
- You CAN specify jars with classpaths if you want.
I was offering a simple solution for someone who doesn't want to keep adding new jars to his classpath to run programs. I didn't say it should be used in all situations.
Anybody know why they decided to make it so you can't just put all.jar's in a *direcotry* referenced by CLASSPATH?
This issue was solved a long time ago.
You put your.jar files in the jre/lib/ext directory of your Java Runtime Environment. They are magically found when you use the JRE as your runtime environment. I haven't had to set a classpath environment variable in a long time.
That's simple, actually. You cannot agree to a contract that you have not yet seen
I know, I was being facetious.;-)
By replying to this post and including the phrase "Demonspawn, I'd like to see another reply." you will agree to pay me $100,000 USD for my reply to your reply.
Now if you reply to this post and include that phrase, you will owe me money for whatever reply I choose to give to you, as I have given you the opportunity to agree to the contract before selling you the goods.
the cameras do NOT, i repeat, do NOT go in the landfills, they are resold back to the public from the store after use
Yes, I am continually amazed by the ignorance. Disposable camera means the CONSUMER disposes of it, not the "film processor."
What I'd like to know is, how many times have these ignoramuses bought a disposable camera, taken a roll of pictures, and then tossed it in the garbage?
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory response pointing out that Slashdot is comprised of many people, some of which like Disney, some of which don't.
One thing we all agree on, though, is that the "Do we hate ________ today?" joke is fucking tired.
Sincerely,
TU
Well, since he's a graduate student at MIT, I'll wager he has.
"Garfinkel holds three degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a masters of science degree from Columbia University. He is a member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), and has a certification in computer security (CISSP) from International Information Systems Security Certifications Consortium."
Quarter-Life
Its obviously not finished yet
Clearly the parts they are pre-loading ARE finished.
you'll probably just end up downloading it a couple times as they fix bugs, change the media, and recompile everything...
Do you honestly think they are going to have thousands of people downloading a 1GB pre-cache of material if there was even the slightest chance that that material is going to change? It would be a total waste of money on their part.
Guaranteed... this pre-load is all the content of the game that is not going to change one iota. They'll still work on the engine and give that to you when it's ready to ship.
That makes one of us.
... Or just knock him down and take his winnings. Either way, Bling-Bling!
After all, that's what his wife does.
The lottery is just a tax on fools.
Slashdot is a lottery for those that are bad at remembering quotations.
A public library is only one example. My point was you don't have to be rich to have internet access, you just have to have ACCESS to someone who has internet access. So this idea is not useless even though it is targeted at poorer areas.
Good thing you never looked back. We're all pointing and laughing at you.
Seriously man... posting this comment in a thread detailing an exploit in your elitist program is kinda... retarded.
WinAmp exploits: 2 (that I know of)
iTunes exploits: 0
Let's keep score.
What could perhaps improve the situation is if copyright law were changed so that the author or artist cannot legally give up their ownership over their work.
Why restrict what someone can do with their own work. If someone WANTS to sign a contract giving full ownership of their creation to someone else, they should be allowed to. However, they should not be allowed to give ownership of a copyrighted work beyond their death, in my opinion.
A person and their family can have a realistic expectation to profit from their creations during the life of the author, but beyond that is crazy.
This would allow artists to go to multiple producers / distributors to release their songs, and put them in competition with each other.
They can do that already if they wish. Why do we need a law forcing them to do this?
As it is, there's really no competition in the music industry. If you like artist X, you have to fork over money to company Y. There's no alternative to get the same thing you want. It's one big mass-monopoly.
There's no alternative? You can turn on the radio or attend one of their concerts. You can buy their CD used.
That artist agreed to let that company distribute their works, they didn't have to agree to it, but they did.
Similarly, I don't feel file sharing should be illegal. The music companies need to figure out a way to make money by offering more bang for your buck and embracing digital music distribution.
I'd think that the problem with using the internet to combat censorship and corruption is that the censored and oppressed people are precisely those without internet access. Those who have it are already in the privileged classes.
False. All you need is one person or group of people with the power to connect to the internet and the desire to let others use it.
Any vagrant can walk into a public library and use the internet. Are they suddenly part of a privileged class?
Everyone supports copyrights because they believe it will benefit the artists. It doesn't.
Bullshit, and I'll prove it forthwith.
The companies own everything the artists produce as soon as a contract is signed.
Please note these key words.
Copyrights only benefit the corporate tag-alongs and, as such, need to be removed or revised.
Do you think the artist could sign a contract (and thus benefit) if they did not have the copyrights to sell to this huge evil company?
Copyrights only benefit the corporate tag-alongs and, as such, need to be removed or revised.
I agree that copyright law is out of control. I would support copyrights that last for a certain period of time, up until the death of the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the work. Perhaps not even that long, but certainly no longer.
"We need to enforce laws to protect the profit of CEOs, VPs, and executives who already have base salaries of multi-millions per year!" Who else agrees?
Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "companies are evil" philosophy that is popular among some of you here.
These companies make money, and that money means they can hire people to work for them, they can pay dividends to their shareholders, and they can continue to sell products to people that want to buy them.
Just one prblem - while you download a song, you are also sharing it
Not if you disable sharing entirely.
Then again, you wouldn't be downloading in the first place if everyone did that.
Then again, I buy my music at iTunes, so wtf do I care.
Note that I do not support this tax relief system for corporations (I think it sucks in a monumental way) so no corporate greed monger flames are needed.
So you honestly believe that corporations pay taxes?
Taxes on businesses are just indirect taxes on regular people. Businesses necessarily pass these expenses on to consumers (higher prices on goods), investors (less money for dividends), and employees (less money to hire new employees or pay existing employees better wages).
This is just one reason why I support the FairTax.
That's GigaBIT (Gb), not Gigabyte (GB) according to the EETimes article.
No, the company actually spells it out as "one gigabyte per second."
If it does something out of the goodness of its heart that costs its ahreholders money, then its been negligent.
Perhaps, but how the hell would you ever prove this?
Target stores donate a percentage of profits to local charities. That is technically costing the company profits. Are they negligent? Probably not, people may tend to do more business with them because of their charity. I believe it would be impossible to prove negligence in any case, so your point here is moot.
Don't be a smart ass.
- You can have multiple JREs if you need them.
- You CAN specify jars with classpaths if you want.
I was offering a simple solution for someone who doesn't want to keep adding new jars to his classpath to run programs. I didn't say it should be used in all situations.
I don't mean to be a prick, but maybe those are all different users complaining? Maybe give them some options. It sounds like you have:
- Some people that want no spam and can accept losing real email.
- Some people that want as little spam as possible without losing any real email.
This is what I like to call "normal."
You mean you own a TV?
Anybody know why they decided to make it so you can't just put all .jar's in a *direcotry* referenced by CLASSPATH?
.jar files in the jre/lib/ext directory of your Java Runtime Environment. They are magically found when you use the JRE as your runtime environment. I haven't had to set a classpath environment variable in a long time.
This issue was solved a long time ago.
You put your
That won't work after the new 'Don't-Drive' rules take into effect on our nations hiways.
Mr. Kennedy (if that is really your name) please step away from the vehicle...
Too late. He already killed Kopechne.
That's simple, actually. You cannot agree to a contract that you have not yet seen
;-)
I know, I was being facetious.
By replying to this post and including the phrase "Demonspawn, I'd like to see another reply." you will agree to pay me $100,000 USD for my reply to your reply.
Now if you reply to this post and include that phrase, you will owe me money for whatever reply I choose to give to you, as I have given you the opportunity to agree to the contract before selling you the goods.
FUCK!
I'm still trying to figure out how you managed to open the shrink-wrapped software without automagically agreeing to the EULA.
You are sharp!
im suprised the mods didn't see this!
:)
You must be new here.
the cameras do NOT, i repeat, do NOT go in the landfills, they are resold back to the public from the store after use
Yes, I am continually amazed by the ignorance. Disposable camera means the CONSUMER disposes of it, not the "film processor."
What I'd like to know is, how many times have these ignoramuses bought a disposable camera, taken a roll of pictures, and then tossed it in the garbage?
Whatever turns your crank, man, it's your money. I find the search to be fun but that's just me.
;-)
Whatever turns your crank, it's your time.
You seem a little bit uptight, by the way. Relax, it's just music.
Nah, it's just people spreading FUD.