I couldn't agree more - things like revisionist history is actually more difficult on Wikipedia as the length of time an article exists increases. Yes, this was a crappy article, but it was caught.
In contradiction, certain states or localities are making rules in the board of educations that text books must do things like, discuss as many women in US history as men. This is impossible from an unbiased basis, as men had more to do with the shaping of the country than did women. Was it because women were treated as second-class citizens? Sure, but the fact of the matter remains that discussing both sexes equally in US history class is a farce.
Wikipedia isn't free from political or PC bents either, but it at least has a huge base of users for discussion, and many articles I've read have gone through several layers of edit to remove commentary or biased text in an article.
I appreciate a source of information that isn't legislated. Truths about past sins of any peoples aren't covered up, history is not revised to fit into our current understanding of culture or civilization, and while every article may not pass across the desk of a triple PhD in a field, it passes across a significantly large crowd of people with specific knowledge - thus instead of a single vetting process, it is under a continuous, unending vetting process that allows us to catch things like TFA refers to.
And what you are missing is that outfits like YouTube and Google can't just erase the current distribution contracts and copyright laws by virtue of some rapidly developed, virally distributed and generally groovy and ginchy technology.
Although one has to wonder if that's at least partially what Google had in mind when they purchased YouTube. Google has been pushing copyright "rights" to the limit for years - caching of web pages, Google Images, scanning and indexing of books, providing results to pages that violate copyright, etc.
Google seems pretty bent on reforming the copyright system (or ignoring it all together) and it almost seems like Apple+Google make a really good team for pulling our antiquated system forward a few steps. Apple started the charge, really, with the iTunes music store, but Google has really stepped up the controversy.
There's nothing wrong with - in a capitalist-based society - a few heavy-hitter businesses fighting it out. It's Google+Apple vs RIAA+MPAA - and the **AAs want government involvement for protection, instead of letting the market "work itself out." So instead of the market being formed by the consumers, we see battle lines forming with govn't support on certain sides.
I'm not a full free-market-to-the-max kinda guy, but I certainly don't mind seeing Google ride roughshod over content companies at ludicrous speed - because it will hopefully eventually force copyright laws into some fashion in which the people of this country - and many countries - would like to see it.
The RIAA/MPAA etc. have always turned to the govn't for protection like they're their Daddy. Please protect me from big-bad cassette tapes, VCR tapes, writable CDs, file-sharing, etc. It's time that the RIAA/MPAA stand up for themselves, and see if they can win in the marketplace without government holding its hand.
Nobody downloads mp3 via http from pimply-faced youths anymore.
No, we download from AllOfMp3. No uploading, no sharing, just good access to quality music. I keep waiting for the RIAA to pick up the model. Guess it's not happening...
Ya know, there was a time when private enterprise and gov'nt could actually work together for good. We all benefit from the work of DARPA, why shouldn't things go the other way too? No-evil-wise, of course. (a man can dream...) oh - posted using opera mini...:)
Best comment in the thread - why do they have to be one over the other? They make the best hardware (arguably) and they make the best OS (arguably.) I actually like not having to pick one over the other, and getting both.
So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves.
That's nice and all, but if "we" all own the airwaves, why don't "we" have any say as to who can broadcast on them, why don't "we" have any say as to who can bid on the airwaves, and where is my check for the leases for these airwaves handed out to companies like Verizon that pay billions that I never see a dime of?
In the new patent system, you patent the goal and then sue anyone who reaches it.
Which makes it much easier to completely fail as a business, and have a fall-back business already in place. While we're successful, let's patent some shit. Then when we fall out of success, we can start suing people.
Thank goodness that WE didn't get sued when we were successful, however.
The iPod wasn't cracked, the stupid DRM encoded into the AAC files you purchase from iTunes has been reverse engineered to allow others to apply the same DRM technology to their files without Apple's permission.
How misleading. And no, this isn't a reason to go buy an iPod. A reason to buy an iPod is that you like how it looks, operates, etc. It's not like this suddenly opens the iPod to a whole WORLD of music it wasn't able to access before. Aside from OGG support which is hardly prevelant, the iPod supports most major music encoding formats right out of the box.
Nah - just head on over to distrowatch.com and pick a Linux distro. I personally dumped Windows at home 5 years ago and I've never looked back.
As lovely as that sentiment is, and as much as I have a linux box and an OSX box at home, Windows is my bread and butter, so it's not leaving my life anytime soon.
This isn't "old news" - this is very important news. The US is - all at the same time - unnecessarily creating a hostile space race, further alienating itself from the world, declaring itself king of space and who can fly there, and basically creating an "anyone who is hostile to the US" policy of disabling, shooting down, or destroying other countries' equipment in space.
This isn't old news, this is NOW news. Just like Iraq, Afganistan - I know that a large portion of the US popuation doesn't consider those things on a daily basis, but news isn't a moment-in-time sort of thing. This declaration is still relevant, scary, extremely obtuse, and worthy of continued discussion.
Anti-piracy measures only annoy legitimate customers and thwart 14 year old morons
DRM measures only annoy legitimate customers and confuse the masses
REAL ID measures only annoy law-abiding citizens and do nothing to stop terrorists
New passport requirements only put law-abiding citizens at risk and do nothing to stop terrorists
Anti-gun laws only annoy legitimate customers and don't stop criminals and murderers
I could list about 20 more, but I'm tired of this. Almost any measure or law that reduces the rights/privacy of normal citizens do nothing to thwart (for more than a day or two) those who would pirate, steal, kill, etc. Yet we march on to the same tune, never ever learning from the lessons of the past.
So who's really surprised by WGA? Guess I'll have to head on over to astalavista.box.sk to download a copy of the WGA crack, just in case MS one day decides my copy of Vista is no longer legitimate.
I thought we were fighting both. And the war on poverty. And the war on illiteracy. And the war on AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease. No wonder why we can't keep up (.. the focus and funding).
No no - just drugs and terror.
See, poverty, illiteracy, AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease - and those you didn't mention like genocide, etc., are too hot politically to be fought, for they provide no gain to the government.
Drugs and terror... and let's go ahead and add child porn... allow the government a "war" that can be used to justify reductions in personal privacy, massive amounts of data collection, and emboldening of the Executive.
Those other "wars" are just hippie rally-cries. Duh.
Because a goodly number of people would prefer this headline be changed from
"Root Exploit For NVIDIA Closed-Source Linux Driver"
to
"Root Exploit For NVIDIA Linux Driver"
I'm personally tired of this over-zealous open-source push. Nvidia is a closed-source company, but they make good products. Stop villainizing Nvidia and evangilizing this open-source madness to everyone. I use Linux (Arch distro - go Arch!) and the hated "closed-source" driver from NVidia because THEY make their cards and THEY make the best drivers for them.
Anyone worried about open-source to this degree, just don't buy an NVidia card already. Trade secrets are money makers, and you can't definitively say that opening their source wouldn't give away some trade secrets or algorithms that keep NVidia at the cutting edge of video card production. If they took out those algorithms to appease a super-minority of NVidia card users, their card would perform sub-par.
I really can't believe this whole thing gets so much play.
"Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme..."
"But I um, actually stole this money off of that old lady that I just shot in the skull..."
"28% bitch! Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme..."
Because these people don't make MS monet, they are a pain in the ass and there is no need, from a business perspective, to keep them happy.
Considering that many of the people that may build their own boxes and actually be effected by this rediculousness are also in charge of IT departments at major corporations, there is a massive and unhindered need - from a business perspective - to keep these people happy.
These are the same people that would install these OSes into a virtual environment, etc.
BTW - this has just sent my company's QA department into panic mode, considering that they wipe test machines (and test VMs) often twice a day.
The question of "why" it gets flagged is even easier to understand, when the post itself includes commentary like
"It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative"
Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? Has free speach suddenly become restricted for a person that is "just a wee bit" one way or the other? The entire point of the accusation of censorship is that any speech at any level was moderated.
Certainly YouTube has rules - no sexually explicit content, fine. But I just read their terms of use and I don't see anything about moderation of content that may be a "wee bit conservative."
Then again, it's like mods on Slashdot (which I believe may have been at least a part of the point of the parent post) which is that given the ability to moderate, people will always mod down speech they don't agree with, completely disregarding said person or organization's absolute right to say it.
Disappointing indeed that the "flagged" content wasn't reviewed by YouTube and simply left be, being that it doesn't violate the terms of use of the site.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, a single redundant app is better than iPhoto's incessant copying of my photos into it's own directory structure. Talk about redundancy.
Is it just me, or with this type of commentary, does CmdrTaco seem to get FP every time?
Releasing Picasa for OSX would be the sweetness!!
Maybe, if I3tospooge is a staunch supporter of the current administration. Otherwise, Fox News won't use his report...
I couldn't agree more - things like revisionist history is actually more difficult on Wikipedia as the length of time an article exists increases. Yes, this was a crappy article, but it was caught.
In contradiction, certain states or localities are making rules in the board of educations that text books must do things like, discuss as many women in US history as men. This is impossible from an unbiased basis, as men had more to do with the shaping of the country than did women. Was it because women were treated as second-class citizens? Sure, but the fact of the matter remains that discussing both sexes equally in US history class is a farce.
Wikipedia isn't free from political or PC bents either, but it at least has a huge base of users for discussion, and many articles I've read have gone through several layers of edit to remove commentary or biased text in an article.
I appreciate a source of information that isn't legislated. Truths about past sins of any peoples aren't covered up, history is not revised to fit into our current understanding of culture or civilization, and while every article may not pass across the desk of a triple PhD in a field, it passes across a significantly large crowd of people with specific knowledge - thus instead of a single vetting process, it is under a continuous, unending vetting process that allows us to catch things like TFA refers to.
Although one has to wonder if that's at least partially what Google had in mind when they purchased YouTube. Google has been pushing copyright "rights" to the limit for years - caching of web pages, Google Images, scanning and indexing of books, providing results to pages that violate copyright, etc.
Google seems pretty bent on reforming the copyright system (or ignoring it all together) and it almost seems like Apple+Google make a really good team for pulling our antiquated system forward a few steps. Apple started the charge, really, with the iTunes music store, but Google has really stepped up the controversy.
There's nothing wrong with - in a capitalist-based society - a few heavy-hitter businesses fighting it out. It's Google+Apple vs RIAA+MPAA - and the **AAs want government involvement for protection, instead of letting the market "work itself out." So instead of the market being formed by the consumers, we see battle lines forming with govn't support on certain sides.
I'm not a full free-market-to-the-max kinda guy, but I certainly don't mind seeing Google ride roughshod over content companies at ludicrous speed - because it will hopefully eventually force copyright laws into some fashion in which the people of this country - and many countries - would like to see it.
The RIAA/MPAA etc. have always turned to the govn't for protection like they're their Daddy. Please protect me from big-bad cassette tapes, VCR tapes, writable CDs, file-sharing, etc. It's time that the RIAA/MPAA stand up for themselves, and see if they can win in the marketplace without government holding its hand.
Sorry... </endrant>
No, we download from AllOfMp3. No uploading, no sharing, just good access to quality music. I keep waiting for the RIAA to pick up the model. Guess it's not happening...
Why hack at all? Just use an IP KVM switch. Full-remote, full-desktop.
Ya know, there was a time when private enterprise and gov'nt could actually work together for good. We all benefit from the work of DARPA, why shouldn't things go the other way too? No-evil-wise, of course. (a man can dream...) oh - posted using opera mini... :)
Best comment in the thread - why do they have to be one over the other? They make the best hardware (arguably) and they make the best OS (arguably.) I actually like not having to pick one over the other, and getting both.
Oh, and they make a nice music player too.
Nice commentary, CmdrTaco.
That's nice and all, but if "we" all own the airwaves, why don't "we" have any say as to who can broadcast on them, why don't "we" have any say as to who can bid on the airwaves, and where is my check for the leases for these airwaves handed out to companies like Verizon that pay billions that I never see a dime of?
Don't fool yourself, you and I don't own squat.
Which makes it much easier to completely fail as a business, and have a fall-back business already in place. While we're successful, let's patent some shit. Then when we fall out of success, we can start suing people.
Thank goodness that WE didn't get sued when we were successful, however.
The iPod wasn't cracked, the stupid DRM encoded into the AAC files you purchase from iTunes has been reverse engineered to allow others to apply the same DRM technology to their files without Apple's permission.
How misleading. And no, this isn't a reason to go buy an iPod. A reason to buy an iPod is that you like how it looks, operates, etc. It's not like this suddenly opens the iPod to a whole WORLD of music it wasn't able to access before. Aside from OGG support which is hardly prevelant, the iPod supports most major music encoding formats right out of the box.
As lovely as that sentiment is, and as much as I have a linux box and an OSX box at home, Windows is my bread and butter, so it's not leaving my life anytime soon.
Be prepared. I heard that somewhere...
This isn't "old news" - this is very important news. The US is - all at the same time - unnecessarily creating a hostile space race, further alienating itself from the world, declaring itself king of space and who can fly there, and basically creating an "anyone who is hostile to the US" policy of disabling, shooting down, or destroying other countries' equipment in space.
This isn't old news, this is NOW news. Just like Iraq, Afganistan - I know that a large portion of the US popuation doesn't consider those things on a daily basis, but news isn't a moment-in-time sort of thing. This declaration is still relevant, scary, extremely obtuse, and worthy of continued discussion.
I could list about 20 more, but I'm tired of this. Almost any measure or law that reduces the rights/privacy of normal citizens do nothing to thwart (for more than a day or two) those who would pirate, steal, kill, etc. Yet we march on to the same tune, never ever learning from the lessons of the past.
So who's really surprised by WGA? Guess I'll have to head on over to astalavista.box.sk to download a copy of the WGA crack, just in case MS one day decides my copy of Vista is no longer legitimate.
Not to mention the heart palpitations that this caffeine/"natural caffeine" cause me. Let's make your heart pump faster! Now there's a good idea!
No no - just drugs and terror.
See, poverty, illiteracy, AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease - and those you didn't mention like genocide, etc., are too hot politically to be fought, for they provide no gain to the government.
Drugs and terror... and let's go ahead and add child porn... allow the government a "war" that can be used to justify reductions in personal privacy, massive amounts of data collection, and emboldening of the Executive.
Those other "wars" are just hippie rally-cries. Duh.
What you call racism, I call social commentary.
Because a goodly number of people would prefer this headline be changed from
"Root Exploit For NVIDIA Closed-Source Linux Driver"
to
"Root Exploit For NVIDIA Linux Driver"
I'm personally tired of this over-zealous open-source push. Nvidia is a closed-source company, but they make good products. Stop villainizing Nvidia and evangilizing this open-source madness to everyone. I use Linux (Arch distro - go Arch!) and the hated "closed-source" driver from NVidia because THEY make their cards and THEY make the best drivers for them.
Anyone worried about open-source to this degree, just don't buy an NVidia card already. Trade secrets are money makers, and you can't definitively say that opening their source wouldn't give away some trade secrets or algorithms that keep NVidia at the cutting edge of video card production. If they took out those algorithms to appease a super-minority of NVidia card users, their card would perform sub-par.
I really can't believe this whole thing gets so much play.
"Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme..." "But I um, actually stole this money off of that old lady that I just shot in the skull..." "28% bitch! Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme..."
I don't think you really are... although I share the idea of your message, which is a taste of their own medicine may be quite vile indeed.
Considering that many of the people that may build their own boxes and actually be effected by this rediculousness are also in charge of IT departments at major corporations, there is a massive and unhindered need - from a business perspective - to keep these people happy.
These are the same people that would install these OSes into a virtual environment, etc.
BTW - this has just sent my company's QA department into panic mode, considering that they wipe test machines (and test VMs) often twice a day.
The question of "why" it gets flagged is even easier to understand, when the post itself includes commentary like
"It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative"
Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? Has free speach suddenly become restricted for a person that is "just a wee bit" one way or the other? The entire point of the accusation of censorship is that any speech at any level was moderated.
Certainly YouTube has rules - no sexually explicit content, fine. But I just read their terms of use and I don't see anything about moderation of content that may be a "wee bit conservative."
Then again, it's like mods on Slashdot (which I believe may have been at least a part of the point of the parent post) which is that given the ability to moderate, people will always mod down speech they don't agree with, completely disregarding said person or organization's absolute right to say it.
Disappointing indeed that the "flagged" content wasn't reviewed by YouTube and simply left be, being that it doesn't violate the terms of use of the site.