"Over the years, various companies have claimed to have a way to sidestep their online ads from being blocked," InterMute CEO Ed English said in a statement. "History has shown [that our] AdSubtract has no problem keeping up with ever-changing online ad technologies."
He sounds quite pleased with what his company's doing, but in reality they're not "keeping up with technology" -- they're finding ever-sneakier ways to push ads into people's faces despite their explicit objection, and despite the fact that they take extra steps to be rid of them.
It's like he eats shit for a living and sports a shit-eating grin.
This comment deserves to be modded to +10 Insightful. After reading the interview, I thought Valenti seemed like a nice sincere guy that was just out of touch. But you're absolutely right: his arguments are all evasions and manipulations.
Valenti: "But you can do everything you're doing right now -- you'll never know there's a broadcast flag. Well, why would people object to it?"
He uses "we" as in regular folk, but we're talking "we" as in tinkerers. So no, we tinkerers can't do everything we want to do without being criminalized and the broadcast flag going off, so that is why we object to it.
But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
He's making it sound like you're favouring 100 000 over 284 millions, but YOU'RE NOT! You're extending the freedoms of all 284 million people!
Tricksy guy! I've never experienced a more slippery guy in my life! My eyes have just been opened, not to mention my mind...
I used to work at a battery manufacturing plant and we had a dry room where people would handle and test lithium batteries. Lithium is far less flammable than gasoline. We had to run tests where we set the lithium batteries on fire, and but you'd surprised how safe it is. When we burned the battery, the lithium caught fire and slowly burned, sending out ocassional sparks and flares. If your car caught fire in an accident and the lithium ignited, a simple barrier would save you from much of the heat and save you. If it was a small tank of gasoline that caught on fire, any barrier would probably just turn into shrapnel and kill you.
The only bad thing is that lithium reacts violently and explosively to water, which is a problem, say if you crash and land in a ditch or it's raining heavily. Idunno what the heck you can do about this, seeing as a car accident can easily destroy any water barrier you can think of.
Oh yeah, any car battery would need electrolyte, which is very toxic. Guess that should be solved.
Shit. Just remembered: you guys are talking about water fuel cells, aren't you? AFAIK, those don't even use lithium. Damn, just saw the word lithium and thought I'd share my experiences with it. Ah well, too bad so sad.
As a final note, having Iraq be free is important to our National Defence because, regardless of what those in DC say, part of the war in Iraq is securing access to vital resources for the American Economy. In other words oil.
That's not "Defense". "Defense" is protecting yourself from the attacks of other countries. Invading other countries because you want to have their oil is called "Offense". And you are not "securing" the oil, you are stealing it. It was never yours to begin with. When people do this, it's called "armed assault" and "robbery", which is illegal; but when the US gov does it, there are people like you who self-righteously talk like they US has a right to whatever it wants.
Seriously though: how do you manage to use all that double-speak with a straight face? It fucking scares me...
so people can change the code to give themselves whatever power they want? no thanks.
it's open source, so you can't accuse them of being hackers. you'll have to accuse them of being "OSS customizers", which doesn't quite have the same charge.
even plain reports of actual events supposedly devoid of bias can be terribly skewed regardless of the reporters intentions. For example, a newspaper makes a big deal about someone's whisperings about how "JFK was a homosexual" (just a dumb example) and prints in the headlines: "WHY JFK WAS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL" or even "WAS JFK A HOMOSEXUAL?". Either way, you've brought up the issue and implanted the idea, so you've already implied that he *was* a homosexual. It's like a Maclean's issue I saw that had on its cover: "Should Christians convert Muslims? Is this what the world needs now?". Well shit, you've already taken the side of the Christians by your phrasing and just by bringing up the idea. They'd *NEVER* print "Should Muslims convert Christians? Is this what the world needs now?"
My point of all this is that all sources of news: blogs, tv, newspapers, everywhere should be held up to the same level of scrutiny by the listener/reader. It is the news source's responsibility to be accurate, but that's impossible in practise to enforce, as shown by my examples above. It's far more effective to educate the populace to become critical thinkers. It's stupid for them to evaluate the dependability of a news source by some "dependability rating" than their own minds.
is compassion. Which is why atheists are so pissed off: they see religions as organizations that capitalize on the last great treasure of the human spirit. It's also why many religious folks are repulsed by atheists: they think that because atheists are denouncing religion, they are also denouncing compassion (ingrained association).
Let's be fair, though.
To all atheists: it's hard to be spiritual in this day and age. Let's respect those who would dedicate their lifes to something higher than beer, sex, weed, power and money. That's already better than most can do.
To all religious folks: it's hard to be compassionate and find the true human spirit without the support of religion or the rest of society (the rest of society only rewards sex, power, money, etc), so let's respect atheists.
We are not Atheists nor Christians, nor any other labels. We are all people, first foremost and always.
but being an English major I feel inclined (an obsessive compulsion, actuallt) to point out that it is more correct to say that "learned" is the American version of the British "learnt", rather than treating the British version as a variation (ENGLish comes from ENGLand, after all...).
If they are in tune and understand linux, they're not TRUE PHBs now, are they? : )
COMMON MISCONCEPTION
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Evolution is NOT planned. It has nothing to do with intention. Suppose we lived in a world with increasingly intense sunlight (for whatever reason), so that the darker and thicker your skin/hair pigmentation, the more you resist exposure in the wild. If you have sensitive light skin, you'll get burns everywhere, which may perhaps develop into cancer. In 1000 years, when sunlight is extremely intense, most of the pale sensitive-skinned people are dead, while most of the dark tough-skinned are alive. Did anyone plan this? No. Did dark skinned people think "hey! I'm gonna start developing darker skin to survive better"? No. But the population has just "evolved" darker and tougher sun-resistant skin, like it or not, because the ones that didn't have it died off. It's as simple as that.
People only talk about evolution as a "shaping force" figuratively. It's in fact nothing but an observation about consequence. It's not some insidious super-power you can will.
That's only easy if you already understand linux. It's not easy if you're a noob.
Linux noobs expect something like "install.exe". They don't know anything about "apt-get", and after seeing it don't understand why it's there. And, intuitively, shouldn't it read "install Gnome2.6" or something? What is this "gaim" thing you speak of? I can guarantee you this is how linux noobs think because I am one.
Usability describes how easy it is to learn how to do something on-the-fly, not how easy it is to do something once you've already learned how.
The most efficient and brilliant code is very compact, so it's very easy to type. It's reaching that level of understanding from total noobness that's hard.
I was about to agree with you but then I realized: when was the last time I used my floppy? Months ago. And I hate it whenever I have to use the slow unreliable 1.44mB disk. I can upload something to the other side of the world faster than I can write stuff to a disk RIGHT IN MY COMPUTER.
At first I thought Apple was crazy for not including a floppy, but now I think Jobs was being a visionary (I'm not an Apple fanboy or anything btw, never owned an apple).
I for one welcome the overthrow of our slow unreliable puny 1.44mb overlords! These things should have been obsoleted years ago.
Microsoft has been using unfair business practises, but you have to remember that in the 90's they pretty much singlehandedly made computers mainstream. Bill's vision of "a computer in every home" resulted in tons of money pouring into the computer industry, without the likes of which I think things may have developed slower (less income so less R&D money).
MS has also used its monopoly to suppress innovation, but I think overall it's been a benefit: now there's lots of money and innovation, it just can't get to market because of MS. Once MS is out of the way, the suppressed technology will come bursting out; but we have to remember that without MS to develop the computing industry in the first place, computers might not have come so far, so quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
So if people mod you up it proves you're right, and if they mod you down it proves you're right.
Now I'm gonna play: you eat human fetuses for breakfast.
If you deny it, it'll only prove you're in defensive denial so nobody finds out. If you say nothing it's because you're too ashamed to answer.
Ok you're turn again! Make it a good one k?
"Over the years, various companies have claimed to have a way to sidestep their online ads from being blocked," InterMute CEO Ed English said in a statement. "History has shown [that our] AdSubtract has no problem keeping up with ever-changing online ad technologies."
He sounds quite pleased with what his company's doing, but in reality they're not "keeping up with technology" -- they're finding ever-sneakier ways to push ads into people's faces despite their explicit objection, and despite the fact that they take extra steps to be rid of them.
It's like he eats shit for a living and sports a shit-eating grin.
This comment deserves to be modded to +10 Insightful. After reading the interview, I thought Valenti seemed like a nice sincere guy that was just out of touch. But you're absolutely right: his arguments are all evasions and manipulations.
Valenti: "But you can do everything you're doing right now -- you'll never know there's a broadcast flag. Well, why would people object to it?"
He uses "we" as in regular folk, but we're talking "we" as in tinkerers. So no, we tinkerers can't do everything we want to do without being criminalized and the broadcast flag going off, so that is why we object to it.
But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
He's making it sound like you're favouring 100 000 over 284 millions, but YOU'RE NOT! You're extending the freedoms of all 284 million people!
Tricksy guy! I've never experienced a more slippery guy in my life! My eyes have just been opened, not to mention my mind...
What about Quicktime? Do you wanna be slow? What about Realplayer? Do you wanna be fake?
Here's what I do:
:D
--> (enable Windows firewall)
- Norton AntiVirus
--> (connect)
- Zone Alarm
--> (update Norton)
--> (update Windows for 2 hours)
- Firefox
- OpenOffice
- Warcraft 3 and Frozen Throne
- play!
I used to work at a battery manufacturing plant and we had a dry room where people would handle and test lithium batteries. Lithium is far less flammable than gasoline. We had to run tests where we set the lithium batteries on fire, and but you'd surprised how safe it is. When we burned the battery, the lithium caught fire and slowly burned, sending out ocassional sparks and flares. If your car caught fire in an accident and the lithium ignited, a simple barrier would save you from much of the heat and save you. If it was a small tank of gasoline that caught on fire, any barrier would probably just turn into shrapnel and kill you.
The only bad thing is that lithium reacts violently and explosively to water, which is a problem, say if you crash and land in a ditch or it's raining heavily. Idunno what the heck you can do about this, seeing as a car accident can easily destroy any water barrier you can think of.
Oh yeah, any car battery would need electrolyte, which is very toxic. Guess that should be solved.
Shit. Just remembered: you guys are talking about water fuel cells, aren't you? AFAIK, those don't even use lithium. Damn, just saw the word lithium and thought I'd share my experiences with it. Ah well, too bad so sad.
part of the war in Iraq is securing access to vital resources for the American Economy. In other words oil.
That's not "Defense". "Defense" is protecting yourself from the attacks of other countries. Invading other countries because you want to have their oil is called "Offense". And you are not "securing" the oil, you are stealing it. It was never yours to begin with. When people do this, it's called "armed assault" and "robbery", which is illegal; but when the US gov does it, there are people like you who self-righteously talk like they US has a right to whatever it wants.
Seriously though: how do you manage to use all that double-speak with a straight face? It fucking scares me...
so people can change the code to give themselves whatever power they want? no thanks.
it's open source, so you can't accuse them of being hackers. you'll have to accuse them of being "OSS customizers", which doesn't quite have the same charge.
even plain reports of actual events supposedly devoid of bias can be terribly skewed regardless of the reporters intentions. For example, a newspaper makes a big deal about someone's whisperings about how "JFK was a homosexual" (just a dumb example) and prints in the headlines: "WHY JFK WAS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL" or even "WAS JFK A HOMOSEXUAL?". Either way, you've brought up the issue and implanted the idea, so you've already implied that he *was* a homosexual. It's like a Maclean's issue I saw that had on its cover: "Should Christians convert Muslims? Is this what the world needs now?". Well shit, you've already taken the side of the Christians by your phrasing and just by bringing up the idea. They'd *NEVER* print "Should Muslims convert Christians? Is this what the world needs now?"
My point of all this is that all sources of news: blogs, tv, newspapers, everywhere should be held up to the same level of scrutiny by the listener/reader. It is the news source's responsibility to be accurate, but that's impossible in practise to enforce, as shown by my examples above. It's far more effective to educate the populace to become critical thinkers. It's stupid for them to evaluate the dependability of a news source by some "dependability rating" than their own minds.
I want to go home. Please help me out and stop making fun of my situation.
Abacha Tunde
He would rtfa but he can't find the link remember? : )
I was *so* hoping for LinDoors, LinHouse LinLookingGlass, or something. These guys shoulda called me. : )
but Slashdot's icon for gaming is still a Gameboy!
It gave us this long weekend. : )
is compassion. Which is why atheists are so pissed off: they see religions as organizations that capitalize on the last great treasure of the human spirit. It's also why many religious folks are repulsed by atheists: they think that because atheists are denouncing religion, they are also denouncing compassion (ingrained association).
Let's be fair, though.
To all atheists: it's hard to be spiritual in this day and age. Let's respect those who would dedicate their lifes to something higher than beer, sex, weed, power and money. That's already better than most can do.
To all religious folks: it's hard to be compassionate and find the true human spirit without the support of religion or the rest of society (the rest of society only rewards sex, power, money, etc), so let's respect atheists.
We are not Atheists nor Christians, nor any other labels. We are all people, first foremost and always.
but being an English major I feel inclined (an obsessive compulsion, actuallt) to point out that it is more correct to say that "learned" is the American version of the British "learnt", rather than treating the British version as a variation (ENGLish comes from ENGLand, after all...).
And no, I'm not English...
If they are in tune and understand linux, they're not TRUE PHBs now, are they? : )
Evolution is NOT planned. It has nothing to do with intention. Suppose we lived in a world with increasingly intense sunlight (for whatever reason), so that the darker and thicker your skin/hair pigmentation, the more you resist exposure in the wild. If you have sensitive light skin, you'll get burns everywhere, which may perhaps develop into cancer. In 1000 years, when sunlight is extremely intense, most of the pale sensitive-skinned people are dead, while most of the dark tough-skinned are alive. Did anyone plan this? No. Did dark skinned people think "hey! I'm gonna start developing darker skin to survive better"? No. But the population has just "evolved" darker and tougher sun-resistant skin, like it or not, because the ones that didn't have it died off. It's as simple as that.
People only talk about evolution as a "shaping force" figuratively. It's in fact nothing but an observation about consequence. It's not some insidious super-power you can will.
"apt-get install gaim"
That's only easy if you already understand linux. It's not easy if you're a noob.
Linux noobs expect something like "install.exe". They don't know anything about "apt-get", and after seeing it don't understand why it's there. And, intuitively, shouldn't it read "install Gnome2.6" or something? What is this "gaim" thing you speak of? I can guarantee you this is how linux noobs think because I am one.
Usability describes how easy it is to learn how to do something on-the-fly, not how easy it is to do something once you've already learned how.
The most efficient and brilliant code is very compact, so it's very easy to type. It's reaching that level of understanding from total noobness that's hard.
I was about to agree with you but then I realized: when was the last time I used my floppy? Months ago. And I hate it whenever I have to use the slow unreliable 1.44mB disk. I can upload something to the other side of the world faster than I can write stuff to a disk RIGHT IN MY COMPUTER.
At first I thought Apple was crazy for not including a floppy, but now I think Jobs was being a visionary (I'm not an Apple fanboy or anything btw, never owned an apple).
I for one welcome the overthrow of our slow unreliable puny 1.44mb overlords! These things should have been obsoleted years ago.
One-handed photo enlargement, huh? one-handed next-pic viewing? very nice...
Oh wait, did I say pic? I meant page. ya, page.
Might be a "jerky" experience though...
"As feature on Slashdot"
will this question become moot if/when PCs and consoles converge into a single home multimedia center?
Microsoft has been using unfair business practises, but you have to remember that in the 90's they pretty much singlehandedly made computers mainstream. Bill's vision of "a computer in every home" resulted in tons of money pouring into the computer industry, without the likes of which I think things may have developed slower (less income so less R&D money).
MS has also used its monopoly to suppress innovation, but I think overall it's been a benefit: now there's lots of money and innovation, it just can't get to market because of MS. Once MS is out of the way, the suppressed technology will come bursting out; but we have to remember that without MS to develop the computing industry in the first place, computers might not have come so far, so quickly.
Maybe we could somehow get those sharks to USE THEIR LASERS to CUT DOWN THE TREES!
BOOM! 2 birds at once!