Or are you going to tell me the censored movies are not censored?
In short, yes. They are modified, surely (which probably makes them suck a lot), but Walmart is just a huge sales channel for content providers, who in this case are movie distributors.
If distributors own the rights to the content, and choose to modify the content to meet Walmart's policies, it's their choice.
I'm not surprised the choose to modify content. That way they can exploit Walmart's retail channels. For a lot of money. For the distributors. And it's their movie. That they modified. Ergo, no one "censored" it.
Wal-Mart sells DVDs that have had their content edited (dubbed words, cut scenes), and only mention it in small type that you have to know to look for. Otherwise the packages look almost identical to the full length versions.
So they *are* labelled then...
It's the same kind of editing that TV stations do to show a PG-13 or R rated movie during the day.
And this was not obvious to who?
The fact that it isn't CLEARLY labelled as such, masquerading as the real thing, IS censorship.
You define "censorship" based on how something is labelled?! Really? You have a differrent understanding of censorship than I do...and the dictionary....and, well, educated people.
Really. Censorship is when an authoritative body prevents you from speaking/viewing/hearing something you want to say/see/hear. Otherwise, it's just not censorship.
Oh, wait! What authority do you believe Walmart has over you? Do they make you come to the store, search their DVD bins, and buy all of your movies from them? If they've started getting that brazen about their world domination efforts, then maybe I really will get concerned.
Er, how does a *store* choosing what merchandise to sell to *customers* who choose to shop there constitute censorship again?
If that's censorship then I guess my local whole foods market is guilty too, because they don't carry Cap'n Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch. All they carry is some crappy organic peanut butter puffs. The *bastards*.
Newsworthy or not, just look at the response he illicets here on slashdot. The largest response of any article in quite a while.
Predictably vocal, partisan, and vitriolic....
Polarization can be a powerful marketing tool in itself. Quite possibly it was said in that frame of mind to begin with. It would be shrewd. All they have to do is say something once and they get hundreds of voices piping up to talk about it. It's free publicity and they win with that, even if they do lose the war with the iPod.
Pontificating on BG's intent seems to be an inexact science at best. Public relations hasn't really been his or M$'s strong point, though, has it?
They got the free marketing. Apple has spent millions.
There isn't a major corporation in existence that doesn't have a PR hack or ten dedicated to pumping out a release about the company smelling like roses every time the CEO breaks wind. Apple, the IPod, and Jobs have all basked in a helluva lotta glory from PR-driven media coverage--they're no Pollyannas with respect to the free coverage media machine.
When you rile the masses opposed to you,
You reinforce their brand loyalty, especially if you're not "shrewd" enough to avoid specifying a brand. Next time BG should try "the leading MP3-player". Advertisers have known that for years e.g. "XYZ soap cleans better than the leading detergent..."
those who are indifferent inevitably take notice of the issues involved.
Bastardizing an annoying sales cliche: No one's ever been fired for underestimating the inertia of apathy.
There are a great deal of indifferent people out there,
Absolutely.
as MS's own sales numbers show.
M$'s sales numbers show that inertia also applies to brand familiarity and market share, which is only peripherally congruent with consumer laziness or apathy.
We are only serving their purpose now with our loud retort.
1. Bill cares not one lick about/. comments. 2. Bill cares many billion licks about stock market analysts and mutual fund managers.
There will always be some CEO opining that their next-gen widget will blow away the current market. Not really newsworthy.
What interests me is how many fail to recognize the market segment that prefers purpose-built devices to all-in-wonderful devices. Several previous posters lament that they only want a phone to phone people, and I know that I'm not going to use a camera phone anytime soon. I prefer the higher res images and higher-quality optics of a consumer digital camera. And I don't pay (directly) to transfer images. Similarly, my PDA and phone aren't combined because I prefer a smaller phone, but a larger PDA screen for usability's sake.
Footwear manufacturers discovered this way back in the '80s when generic sneakers gave way to sport-specific "tools". Technology visionaries have blindspots, and I believe this is one.
using your logic, no one does anything but follow recipe's.
Uh, no. "Why, any dumb monkey can put together a PC from parts in 20 minutes." That's you.
Here's me, "It takes knowledge and experience to research which parts to include in a system truly built from scratch, and more knowledge and experience to set up the system properly once you've assembled it."
That means researching and purchasing the best pieces/parts for your needs and within your given budget; figuring out which are plug-n-play, and which won't play nice together unless coaxed; assembling it (setting jumpers correctly, if required); configuring BIOS; installing and hardening the OS; setting up RAID (if desired), etc.
Nevermind the fact that I can do it by memory.
I can make Kraft mac&cheese without reading the box. Does that mean I'm making it from scratch? No.
What difference does it make if someone follows a set of instructions?
The person who wrote the instructions probably knows what they're doing. The person who's just following them, doesn't need to, as long as they can read. That's the difference.
If they didn't follow the standard nothing would work.
What standard are you referring to? There are many, many, many standards applicable to personal computing. I'm not talking about matching cards to slots or connectors to sockets. I'm talking about knowing whether on-board sound processing is "good enough" or Burr-Brown DSPs on a top-of-the-line sound card is "barely sufficient".
You can't just plug anything anywhere... it just doesn't work that way.
Thanks for the update. I was wondering why my Ultra320 SCSI drive wasn't fitting into my ATA-6 controller. It's so clear now.
Just as an observation, an AC in this thread noted that Warner Bros. is an Internet2 member organization, and presumeably is also affiliated with the RIAA, either directly or through a music subsidiary.
Why is it so surprising to people that the RIAA had some access to I2?
[mere_speculation] Last I heard, admissions offices didn't forbid employees of organizations from enrolling in colleges or individual courses. And sometimes organizations even reimburse employees for tuition. If any amicable RIAA employee is enrolled in an I2 member institution, the RIAA has enough access to gather "evidence".
Alternatively, occasionally "private" organizations partner with universities on research projects, and then use that research in a self-interested manner. Who's surprised by this? [/mere_speculation]
To be clear, I'm not condoning anyone's business practices here. I'm just adding some context to the discussion.
it's already been done. I didn't make that up, they did
No, it hasn't. And if that testimony is your "evidence", then yes you did, and no they didn't.
There's a few layers of citing to unravel here, so don't get lost along the way:
You cited testimony that cites an article that cites international law enforcement agency agreement on the high probability that terrorism is funded by organized-crime syndicates participating in illegal commercial-scale reproduction and distribution [and *sales*] of counterfeit and pirated goods.
Apparently your brain translates that into, "See! SEE!! He said music and movie filesharing is terrorism!!" Sorry, I can't make my mind leap that huge gorge of flawed logic with you.
Your pal Jack said that.
Oh that's awesome. I call you out for whining and suddenly I'm golfing buddies with rich dudes. If only I'd heard about this secret shortcut to wealth and power sooner.
May I point out that if you're a US citizen like me, and voted last November, then from my perspective there's a better than 50% chance you voted for the corporate organ grinder's monkey that signed this law--and there's a 0% chance that I did.
More pointedly, I think you're plain foolish for harping on/. about a moot component of a very important issue, rather than lobbying your own elected officials, who make these laws, with rational guidance on IP issues. Preaching to an impotent choir is an easy cop out that accomplishes nothing. Communicating with policy-makers has a, maybe only slightly, better chance of success.
Just a matter of time (read: money) before they convince the senators they own to legally mandate filesharing=terrorism
Hi ho, Hi ho, it's down the slope we ge go. We slip all day, we slip all night...
If there's anything more played out and tired than, "Pirates have patches and parrots" whining, it's, "What happens when they start calling [whatever] terrorism," whining.
Jaywalking, speeding, underage drinking, and copyright infringement are all very popular crimes that I'm sure are quite safe from the "terrorism" brand.
I'm not disputing that words can gain new meanings.
Well actually, in this case you did. But whatever.
However by using a term that is inherently bad to describe an action that is NOT inherently bad it creates a subconcious association that the act must be bad.
Are you actually arguing that people are going to subconciously associate 21st century copyright infringement with brutally violent 18th and 19th century maritime crime and commerce? Give yourself a break and step back from the ledge my friend.
but nobody in their right mind would defend "piracy."
Wasn't there just a very popular movie, based on a Disneyland kiddie ride, that did just that? You could probably find a torrent somewhere.;-)
And would you mind citing some sources showing that "geekdom" originated the use of the word "pirate" in regard to making unauthorized copies of software/media? Because I'm pretty sure it's been used by the RIAA long before the Internet was popular; they referred to the guys selling tapes on the street as pirates back in the 80s.
Cites? Google if you're that curious. I was there in the very early 80s, playing cracked video games on my AII. Most of them had some sort of Jolly Rodger splash screen "signature" prepended to the boot process. The term is decades old, and the **AA crowd has only recently cared about P2P. Can you provide even one reference backing your argument that the **AA used it pre-Internet?
Also, most media is not digitized, and even if it was, it wouldn't make the term any more appropriate than if it was all digitized.
A/D conversion is completely trivial. Whether it's a direct media conversion or some dip in a theater with a digital camcorder recording Episode III, is moot.
Your plea, while moderately eloquent, is completely wrong, so I must refuse.
S'alright. I know it's hard to knock sense into a fool.
Actually, since piracy has been a popular and accepted term for cracking, copying, and distributing software for well over two damn decades, I just don't find it much of a leap to apply the word to the same behavior with other digitized media.
Pirates take objects from one place to another. With the definition of theft, the object of desire has to move from one place to another to define theft. You cant simply take a picture of the object and call it theft.
I'm at a complete loss as to why you would assume one distinct definition for a word should bear any factual relation to a second distinct definition for the same word. I mean(1), I hope you don't think I'm mean(2), if I give you the example of the word "average", which could mean(3) "mean(4)", "mode", or "median" for a dataset.
So why are the populous termed 'pirates' for copying (not taking) creative media?
As I've pointed out, no one complained twenty-some years ago when we were passing around cracked copies of Taxman and Loderunner, calling ourselves pirates to sound cooler than we were. Now that a larger population has discovered, uh, pirating, songs and movies with their home computers, I'm not surprised that the world is adopting the same old terminology for it. After all "pirate" does sound cooler than "copy and distribute", does it not?
You can twist this into the beauty of the English language but it only serves one interest. Propaganda.
Propaganda? Please. Get a grip and grab onto some perspective. No ones dropping anti-P2P pamphlets from low-flying C130 gunships.
In the same light pharmacy companies are not called pirates for taking, copying, reproducing and copyrighting human/animal plant DNA without consent. Pirates? surely not!
Keep your ill-conceived, over-wrought, clumsy, and frankly just plain odd analogies closer to your vest from now on, because I'm too tired to deal and I don't need to hear them. Thanks.
Hey, I know that I'd enjoy the hell out of a motorcycle--for about 32 seconds of pure acceleration prior to the fiery crash to follow. If they are honestly saying that TCP/IP is too much for them, then I'm happy to take them at their word and use a better OS.
Sorry, this tired goddamn semantic whining about the meaning of "pirate" pisses me off more.
Like it or not, English is a language that allows words to have multiple meanings that must be gleaned from context e.g. the following:
"My pirate ship floated until it sank, but then my loan officer, who pirates software in his spare time, floated me a loan for a new ship."
The **AA didn't originate the usage of the word piracy to describe illegally copying and distributing copyrighted works. Geekdom, God love us, originated the pirate terminology to making copying Taxman, Gorgon, Loderunner and "Dr. J vs. Larry Bird" sound much cooler than it really was.
Now that most media is digitized (e.g. software), the term is unfortunately apt. So move on and quit bitching about it. I beg you.
Routers don't automatically send it unless the DNS records specify a wildcard for the domain
Excluding corner cases like nameservers defined in router configs to resolve names within tftp, telnet/ssh, ping, and traceroute commands issued by admins from the router's CLI, routers have *absolutely* nothing to do with DNS!
All DNS transactions are handled between DNS clients and DNS servers, or between DNS servers and other DNS servers.
If your computer sends a DNS query for "foo.bar.com" to its nameserver and it gets an A record entry back, then "foo" is a host. If it gets an NS record entry back, then "foo" is a third-level domain, and the query gets forwarded to the nameserver for the "foo.bar.com" zone. This process could repeat through more domain levels until an A record is found, or until you get an error from the last nameserver queried.
If your computer sends a DNS query for "oof.bar.com" and there is no "oof" host, third-level domain, and no wildcard entry in "bar.com", you will get an error. If a wildcard exists for bar.com, your computer will receive the A record entry associated with "*" in bar.com's zone.
How did you ever get your head that far up your ass while your knee was jerking so hard?! RTFA, ya moron...
Quoting: No tax money would be used for the Minneapolis wireless network, which would be paid for, built, owned and operated by the winning bidder on the city's proposal.
You may now return to AM1500 for more brainwashing...
Let me ask you this: If the citizen's of a specific community vote via ballot to increase their tax revenues (e.g. pay more) to fund a specific municipal project (i.e. utilities, street lights, stop signs, emergency services, law enforcement, school expansion, WiFi, whatever...), is that socialism or communism?
Re:Hello, where's the penis?
on
Spam Kings
·
· Score: 1
I just assumed it was done to generalize between penis and breast enlargement spam, or to play on the subject-line garbage-characters that spammers use to confuse filters.
It's disappointing how inept folks are at interpreting statistics.
The statistic that 5% of all IT projects are on time doesn't imply that 5% of all IT workers complete 100% of their projects on time. Rather, it implies that for the population of all IT projects, 5% of them are completed "successfully" with success being defined as "on time". Note that this could mean that for every 20 projects a "statisically normal" IT organization completes, 1 of them is completed "on time."
To your point: This means that a normal organization "fails" 95% of the time, so by your measure they must be pushing quite hard. Or they could be seriously lacking focus, resources, time, skills, competent management etc. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.
After reading both of your posts to this article, I'm just trying to imagine how you could have made a bigger jackass out of yourself. My imagination may be inadequate for the task.
Waaay back in college, dorm life became infurating one year when our next door neighbors wired an everyday alarm clock up to an old salvaged building fire alarm mounted on a wooden base. That thing was loud enough to cause hearing damage through the adjacent wall.
The situation almost escalated to violence when they left for home several consecutive weekends, and left the alarm on to go off at 6:00 AM Saturday and Sunday both times!! Several hangover prone floors of our dorm wing were ready to take them "out behind the shed" after the second weekend. I don't know how they avoided a beating.
Slashdot Mirror
Or are you going to tell me the censored movies are not censored?
In short, yes. They are modified, surely (which probably makes them suck a lot), but Walmart is just a huge sales channel for content providers, who in this case are movie distributors.
If distributors own the rights to the content, and choose to modify the content to meet Walmart's policies, it's their choice.
I'm not surprised the choose to modify content. That way they can exploit Walmart's retail channels. For a lot of money. For the distributors. And it's their movie. That they modified. Ergo, no one "censored" it.
What do you do when Wal-Mart is the only game in town?
Well, I'd mosey over to the next town, I s'pose. Course'n I might need an auto-mo-bile fer that.
Or I may shop online. Or by mail order. Or have a cityslicker cousin buy movies for me.
Inconvenience is not censorship.
Wal-Mart sells DVDs that have had their content edited (dubbed words, cut scenes), and only mention it in small type that you have to know to look for. Otherwise the packages look almost identical to the full length versions.
So they *are* labelled then...
It's the same kind of editing that TV stations do to show a PG-13 or R rated movie during the day.
And this was not obvious to who?
The fact that it isn't CLEARLY labelled as such, masquerading as the real thing, IS censorship.
You define "censorship" based on how something is labelled?! Really? You have a differrent understanding of censorship than I do...and the dictionary....and, well, educated people.
Really. Censorship is when an authoritative body prevents you from speaking/viewing/hearing something you want to say/see/hear. Otherwise, it's just not censorship.
Oh, wait! What authority do you believe Walmart has over you? Do they make you come to the store, search their DVD bins, and buy all of your movies from them? If they've started getting that brazen about their world domination efforts, then maybe I really will get concerned.
Er, how does a *store* choosing what merchandise to sell to *customers* who choose to shop there constitute censorship again?
If that's censorship then I guess my local whole foods market is guilty too, because they don't carry Cap'n Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch. All they carry is some crappy organic peanut butter puffs. The *bastards*.
Newsworthy or not, just look at the response he illicets here on slashdot. The largest response of any article in quite a while.
/. comments.
Predictably vocal, partisan, and vitriolic....
Polarization can be a powerful marketing tool in itself. Quite possibly it was said in that frame of mind to begin with. It would be shrewd. All they have to do is say something once and they get hundreds of voices piping up to talk about it. It's free publicity and they win with that, even if they do lose the war with the iPod.
Pontificating on BG's intent seems to be an inexact science at best. Public relations hasn't really been his or M$'s strong point, though, has it?
They got the free marketing. Apple has spent millions.
There isn't a major corporation in existence that doesn't have a PR hack or ten dedicated to pumping out a release about the company smelling like roses every time the CEO breaks wind. Apple, the IPod, and Jobs have all basked in a helluva lotta glory from PR-driven media coverage--they're no Pollyannas with respect to the free coverage media machine.
When you rile the masses opposed to you,
You reinforce their brand loyalty, especially if you're not "shrewd" enough to avoid specifying a brand. Next time BG should try "the leading MP3-player". Advertisers have known that for years e.g. "XYZ soap cleans better than the leading detergent..."
those who are indifferent inevitably take notice of the issues involved.
Bastardizing an annoying sales cliche: No one's ever been fired for underestimating the inertia of apathy.
There are a great deal of indifferent people out there,
Absolutely.
as MS's own sales numbers show.
M$'s sales numbers show that inertia also applies to brand familiarity and market share, which is only peripherally congruent with consumer laziness or apathy.
We are only serving their purpose now with our loud retort.
1. Bill cares not one lick about
2. Bill cares many billion licks about stock market analysts and mutual fund managers.
Ergo, we're not even a tiny blip on the radar.
There will always be some CEO opining that their next-gen widget will blow away the current market. Not really newsworthy.
What interests me is how many fail to recognize the market segment that prefers purpose-built devices to all-in-wonderful devices. Several previous posters lament that they only want a phone to phone people, and I know that I'm not going to use a camera phone anytime soon. I prefer the higher res images and higher-quality optics of a consumer digital camera. And I don't pay (directly) to transfer images. Similarly, my PDA and phone aren't combined because I prefer a smaller phone, but a larger PDA screen for usability's sake.
Footwear manufacturers discovered this way back in the '80s when generic sneakers gave way to sport-specific "tools". Technology visionaries have blindspots, and I believe this is one.
using your logic, no one does anything but follow recipe's.
Uh, no. "Why, any dumb monkey can put together a PC from parts in 20 minutes." That's you.
Here's me, "It takes knowledge and experience to research which parts to include in a system truly built from scratch, and more knowledge and experience to set up the system properly once you've assembled it."
That means researching and purchasing the best pieces/parts for your needs and within your given budget; figuring out which are plug-n-play, and which won't play nice together unless coaxed; assembling it (setting jumpers correctly, if required); configuring BIOS; installing and hardening the OS; setting up RAID (if desired), etc.
Nevermind the fact that I can do it by memory.
I can make Kraft mac&cheese without reading the box. Does that mean I'm making it from scratch? No.
What difference does it make if someone follows a set of instructions?
The person who wrote the instructions probably knows what they're doing. The person who's just following them, doesn't need to, as long as they can read. That's the difference.
If they didn't follow the standard nothing would work.
What standard are you referring to? There are many, many, many standards applicable to personal computing. I'm not talking about matching cards to slots or connectors to sockets. I'm talking about knowing whether on-board sound processing is "good enough" or Burr-Brown DSPs on a top-of-the-line sound card is "barely sufficient".
You can't just plug anything anywhere... it just doesn't work that way.
Thanks for the update. I was wondering why my Ultra320 SCSI drive wasn't fitting into my ATA-6 controller. It's so clear now.
Just as an observation, an AC in this thread noted that Warner Bros. is an Internet2 member organization, and presumeably is also affiliated with the RIAA, either directly or through a music subsidiary.
It seems the fox has a condo in the henhouse.
Put the ingredients and a recipe in front of me, and I can cook anything. Doesn't make me a gourmet chef.
Sorry, you're a recipe follower, not a system builder.
What would happen if he had changed the dns of his website, to, i dunno, say the ip address of fbi.gov?
1. How is it better, for him, if he DoS's himself? Either way, customers won't reach his website, and he'll lose money.
2. Who says the extortionists would use hostnames, rather than targeting by IP address or by netblock?
Why is it so surprising to people that the RIAA had some access to I2?
[mere_speculation]
Last I heard, admissions offices didn't forbid employees of organizations from enrolling in colleges or individual courses. And sometimes organizations even reimburse employees for tuition. If any amicable RIAA employee is enrolled in an I2 member institution, the RIAA has enough access to gather "evidence".
Alternatively, occasionally "private" organizations partner with universities on research projects, and then use that research in a self-interested manner. Who's surprised by this?
[/mere_speculation]
To be clear, I'm not condoning anyone's business practices here. I'm just adding some context to the discussion.
it's already been done. I didn't make that up, they did
/. about a moot component of a very important issue, rather than lobbying your own elected officials, who make these laws, with rational guidance on IP issues. Preaching to an impotent choir is an easy cop out that accomplishes nothing. Communicating with policy-makers has a, maybe only slightly, better chance of success.
No, it hasn't. And if that testimony is your "evidence", then yes you did, and no they didn't.
There's a few layers of citing to unravel here, so don't get lost along the way:
You cited testimony that cites an article that cites international law enforcement agency agreement on the high probability that terrorism is funded by organized-crime syndicates participating in illegal commercial-scale reproduction and distribution [and *sales*] of counterfeit and pirated goods.
Apparently your brain translates that into, "See! SEE!! He said music and movie filesharing is terrorism!!" Sorry, I can't make my mind leap that huge gorge of flawed logic with you.
Your pal Jack said that.
Oh that's awesome. I call you out for whining and suddenly I'm golfing buddies with rich dudes. If only I'd heard about this secret shortcut to wealth and power sooner.
May I point out that if you're a US citizen like me, and voted last November, then from my perspective there's a better than 50% chance you voted for the corporate organ grinder's monkey that signed this law--and there's a 0% chance that I did.
More pointedly, I think you're plain foolish for harping on
Just a matter of time (read: money) before they convince the senators they own to legally mandate filesharing=terrorism
Hi ho, Hi ho, it's down the slope we ge go. We slip all day, we slip all night...
If there's anything more played out and tired than, "Pirates have patches and parrots" whining, it's, "What happens when they start calling [whatever] terrorism," whining.
Jaywalking, speeding, underage drinking, and copyright infringement are all very popular crimes that I'm sure are quite safe from the "terrorism" brand.
Man, Chicken Little has a soulmate in you.
I'm not disputing that words can gain new meanings.
;-)
Well actually, in this case you did. But whatever.
However by using a term that is inherently bad to describe an action that is NOT inherently bad it creates a subconcious association that the act must be bad.
Are you actually arguing that people are going to subconciously associate 21st century copyright infringement with brutally violent 18th and 19th century maritime crime and commerce? Give yourself a break and step back from the ledge my friend.
but nobody in their right mind would defend "piracy."
Wasn't there just a very popular movie, based on a Disneyland kiddie ride, that did just that? You could probably find a torrent somewhere.
And would you mind citing some sources showing that "geekdom" originated the use of the word "pirate" in regard to making unauthorized copies of software/media? Because I'm pretty sure it's been used by the RIAA long before the Internet was popular; they referred to the guys selling tapes on the street as pirates back in the 80s.
Cites? Google if you're that curious. I was there in the very early 80s, playing cracked video games on my AII. Most of them had some sort of Jolly Rodger splash screen "signature" prepended to the boot process. The term is decades old, and the **AA crowd has only recently cared about P2P. Can you provide even one reference backing your argument that the **AA used it pre-Internet?
Also, most media is not digitized, and even if it was, it wouldn't make the term any more appropriate than if it was all digitized.
A/D conversion is completely trivial. Whether it's a direct media conversion or some dip in a theater with a digital camcorder recording Episode III, is moot.
Your plea, while moderately eloquent, is completely wrong, so I must refuse.
S'alright. I know it's hard to knock sense into a fool.
It's not though is it?
Actually, since piracy has been a popular and accepted term for cracking, copying, and distributing software for well over two damn decades, I just don't find it much of a leap to apply the word to the same behavior with other digitized media.
Pirates take objects from one place to another. With the definition of theft, the object of desire has to move from one place to another to define theft. You cant simply take a picture of the object and call it theft.
I'm at a complete loss as to why you would assume one distinct definition for a word should bear any factual relation to a second distinct definition for the same word. I mean(1), I hope you don't think I'm mean(2), if I give you the example of the word "average", which could mean(3) "mean(4)", "mode", or "median" for a dataset.
So why are the populous termed 'pirates' for copying (not taking) creative media?
As I've pointed out, no one complained twenty-some years ago when we were passing around cracked copies of Taxman and Loderunner, calling ourselves pirates to sound cooler than we were. Now that a larger population has discovered, uh, pirating, songs and movies with their home computers, I'm not surprised that the world is adopting the same old terminology for it. After all "pirate" does sound cooler than "copy and distribute", does it not?
You can twist this into the beauty of the English language but it only serves one interest. Propaganda.
Propaganda? Please. Get a grip and grab onto some perspective. No ones dropping anti-P2P pamphlets from low-flying C130 gunships.
In the same light pharmacy companies are not called pirates for taking, copying, reproducing and copyrighting human/animal plant DNA without consent. Pirates? surely not!
Keep your ill-conceived, over-wrought, clumsy, and frankly just plain odd analogies closer to your vest from now on, because I'm too tired to deal and I don't need to hear them. Thanks.
Hey, I know that I'd enjoy the hell out of a motorcycle--for about 32 seconds of pure acceleration prior to the fiery crash to follow. If they are honestly saying that TCP/IP is too much for them, then I'm happy to take them at their word and use a better OS.
Sorry, this tired goddamn semantic whining about the meaning of "pirate" pisses me off more.
Like it or not, English is a language that allows words to have multiple meanings that must be gleaned from context e.g. the following:
"My pirate ship floated until it sank, but then my loan officer, who pirates software in his spare time, floated me a loan for a new ship."
The **AA didn't originate the usage of the word piracy to describe illegally copying and distributing copyrighted works. Geekdom, God love us, originated the pirate terminology to making copying Taxman, Gorgon, Loderunner and "Dr. J vs. Larry Bird" sound much cooler than it really was.
Now that most media is digitized (e.g. software), the term is unfortunately apt. So move on and quit bitching about it. I beg you.
Routers don't automatically send it unless the DNS records specify a wildcard for the domain
Excluding corner cases like nameservers defined in router configs to resolve names within tftp, telnet/ssh, ping, and traceroute commands issued by admins from the router's CLI, routers have *absolutely* nothing to do with DNS!
All DNS transactions are handled between DNS clients and DNS servers, or between DNS servers and other DNS servers.
If your computer sends a DNS query for "foo.bar.com" to its nameserver and it gets an A record entry back, then "foo" is a host. If it gets an NS record entry back, then "foo" is a third-level domain, and the query gets forwarded to the nameserver for the "foo.bar.com" zone. This process could repeat through more domain levels until an A record is found, or until you get an error from the last nameserver queried.
If your computer sends a DNS query for "oof.bar.com" and there is no "oof" host, third-level domain, and no wildcard entry in "bar.com", you will get an error. If a wildcard exists for bar.com, your computer will receive the A record entry associated with "*" in bar.com's zone.
Governments love to claim that projects like this aren't going to cost any money
The strawman tests his legs...
9 times out of 10, it's the other way around.
And collapses under his own weight. Show me some, nay any, supporting data and I'll believe this claim.
Oh, for f**k's sake...
How did you ever get your head that far up your ass while your knee was jerking so hard?! RTFA, ya moron...
Quoting: No tax money would be used for the Minneapolis wireless network, which would be paid for, built, owned and operated by the winning bidder on the city's proposal.
You may now return to AM1500 for more brainwashing...
Let me ask you this: If the citizen's of a specific community vote via ballot to increase their tax revenues (e.g. pay more) to fund a specific municipal project (i.e. utilities, street lights, stop signs, emergency services, law enforcement, school expansion, WiFi, whatever...), is that socialism or communism?
I just assumed it was done to generalize between penis and breast enlargement spam, or to play on the subject-line garbage-characters that spammers use to confuse filters.
It's disappointing how inept folks are at interpreting statistics.
The statistic that 5% of all IT projects are on time doesn't imply that 5% of all IT workers complete 100% of their projects on time. Rather, it implies that for the population of all IT projects, 5% of them are completed "successfully" with success being defined as "on time". Note that this could mean that for every 20 projects a "statisically normal" IT organization completes, 1 of them is completed "on time."
To your point: This means that a normal organization "fails" 95% of the time, so by your measure they must be pushing quite hard. Or they could be seriously lacking focus, resources, time, skills, competent management etc. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.
After reading both of your posts to this article, I'm just trying to imagine how you could have made a bigger jackass out of yourself. My imagination may be inadequate for the task.
Waaay back in college, dorm life became infurating one year when our next door neighbors wired an everyday alarm clock up to an old salvaged building fire alarm mounted on a wooden base. That thing was loud enough to cause hearing damage through the adjacent wall.
The situation almost escalated to violence when they left for home several consecutive weekends, and left the alarm on to go off at 6:00 AM Saturday and Sunday both times!! Several hangover prone floors of our dorm wing were ready to take them "out behind the shed" after the second weekend. I don't know how they avoided a beating.