So you're saying that if the water company suddenly decides to shut up shop, we just do without water until somebody can be found to take over the business (providing all their own infrastructure) ? Get a fucking clue. Should microsoft be allowed to shut up shop, simultaneously sending a kill command to every computer running their OS ? It's nothing to do with punishing those who are successful, but protecting those who have come to depend on the only game in town. There is a reason those banks got bailed out, not just to give backhanders to the well off CEOs. How many companies would go bust if the banks were left to die ? Where would YOUR wages come from ? Sometimes you have to do things for the benefit of the larger community, but it seems, as is more and more common these days, most people are only thinking of their own pocket, and fuck the rest of you. That's how we got in this mess.
Yeah right. For years your neighbour has been clearing his drive with a snow blower and laughing at you with your shovel. Now his blower's broken and you are considering clearing his drive for him ? More fool you !
What's wrong with ffmpeg and ffserver ? I encode swf video on the fly from a mjpeg stream originating from an IP camera. It's currently quite choppy as I can't get much more than 6 fps to stream consistently over an ADSL connection without using all the available upstream bandwidth. That is not an issue for a local source file. This demo is only available for the next hour !
1)Open the pot facing away from you 2)They do that because people got cut on the ring pulls and also threw them on the ground. 3)Try squeezing the bottle instead of sucking the liquid.
Not everything is someone elses fault. How about those cars where the reverse gear is right next to the forward gears ? Or those stupid lights that expect you stop and let other people use the road ? The list is endless.
I'm really looking forward to the breakdown of civilisation. The majority of people will be dead within a month because they have NO COMMON SENSE ! Anybody with half a brain will be living in paradise. There was a time when people knew how to look after themselves without relying on corporations to wipe their arses and give them a tit to suck on.
Yes. Because then we don't buy the product as it's too expensive, which forces the manufacturer to cut those costs. No-one is forced to buy any particular brand. Unless you consider yourself a consumer - ie the lowest form of life, destined to open your wallet every time the tv tells you to. You can tax the manufacturer or the consumer but in the end it's always the consumer who pays. Here in the UK we used to have milk delivered every day in glass bottles. The milkman used to collect the empties for washing and refilling, and the delivery was done with electric vehicles. But - it was cheaper for the milk companies to use plastic and get rid of the milkman, so now we have problem plastic going into the ground as landfill AND the milk has to travel much further to regional bottling plants then be re-transported back to its original area for sale in shops AND we have put thousands of people out of a job*. So which is cheaper in the final analysis ?
* These workers were also delivering bread, vegetables, other dairy products, and also were usually the people who alerted the emergency services when somebody was ill or incapacitated (due to yesterdays milk still being there) and also helped keep burglary and crime down by being around at times when everybody else was asleep. But no, fuck that, we want cheap and disposable. Money rules FTW.
It's laughable that you bemoan the lack of logic in anothers argument, then demonstrate your own by saying that will never happen again. Would you care to put money on that ?
In a word: No You seem to be in favour of the data getting out and punishing those responsible. How does that protect my data ? Answer - it doesn't, in any way shape or form. As for the thief only needing one more step, that's wrong too. I have a key for my ssh connections which requires a passphrase. I could use the same for files. So I would need: a)the files b)the key c)the passphrase.
So no, nanny state is not accurate. Explain to me why the state is mandating encryption - oh yes, it's because companies are not doing it voluntarily, and OUR data is being traded like pokemon cards.
What other nanny state things are there ? Well, the clean air legislation, anti-slavery legislation, minimum wage, building regulation, safe food legislation, criminal legislation, etc, etc, etc. Are you against those too ? You show me another way of ensuring my data is safe that doesn't require the govt. to make it mandatory and I'll show that it doesn't work.
First off, what is so sacred about legality? The law is not set in stone, it's constantly being updated, and varies wildly from location to location. I believe all knowledge to be ultimately good, and censorship will necessarily trample on that. It's digital book burning plain and simple.
Information about illegal Drug, bomb construction, racism all blurs into legitimate subjects because there are no real boundaries. That's why the law making process is difficult, and why censorship will always have side effects and is never acceptable.
So you can break the law with impunity because in 20 years time the law might be different ? Should all cancer treatments be banned because they have side effects ? Balance is the key word. Never say never. In a world where most people are relatively uneducated, you can't make laws that rely on the people having a first class honours degree in philosophy. So you go for practicable, not nth degree logical. Self censorship exercise. Tell the boss what you really think of him. Here's another, your mother calls down to your basement to tell you food is on the table, you are busy - do you shout "oh for fucks sake, you bitch, just hold on a minute" or do you say " thanks I'll be there in a minute" ? Define censorship.
So you're ok with child porn then ? Or your bank details appearing on the web ? You seem to be confusing free speech with censorship. You are entitled to write/say anything you like, but no-one is forced to read/listen. In the case of your "speech" causing harm to others, then it is perfectly acceptable to have it censored. I can stand at the corner shouting kill all muslims, but if the authorities do nothing, then the muslims think that the authorities agree and that causes trouble for everybody. So I don't get to do that.(not that I would want to) You can't have everything you want. Do you really want to see goatse on the front page of your local newspaper ? Or should the editor decide against it ? Is that censorship ? Argue amongst yourself...
It's funny, but we used to have a word for such items - Unique Unfortunately, idiots have misused this term so much that we have to use other terms instead. So in revenge, I guess something can be very singleton, almost singleton, etc.
Crap. No-one owns an IP, they are assigned. If you want a fixed IP, you pay to have it assigned to you, you don't buy it. If you don't buy it, you don't OWN it. So give them back.
Err, you got that the wrong way around. Credit companies like people who can't pay their bills. They are the ones with a large balance on their cards, and hence, large monthly repayments. Without the swingeing interest on balances, credit card companies would have no business model.
Way to miss the point. The point is that the money "created" by lending on unsafe investments has been used as a basis for lending to other non-housing related sectors. This is why things are in freefall, the whole system has become dependent on a bad market. Do you know what an analogy is ? Maybe you noticed the implied "snip" in the parents post ? But no, that wouldn't suit your bias, so you fired off an angry post instead. You remember the popular broken window fallacy ? Well it seems your economy has been relying on that system being true. And your crack about the foreign lenders getting the short end of the stick smacks of US imperialism up the wazoo. Does that mean that your system works perfectly just as long as no-one actually uses it ?
This is precisely the opposite of what we want. People don't want a TV OR a computer, they want to watch/see media. The TV is only a screen with built in receiving components. So separate the screen from the components, and you end up with a controller and a screen. The pc is the best controller possible. It's upgradeable not just in hardware but also software, to enable upgrades of both types of technology while keeping the same display. You should be able to choose which software you use to manage your media, not just blindly accept whatever comes down the pipe. Your suggestion seems to accept that big media will run the (video based) internet. Not for me thanks. I'd prefer the stream to be open and I choose what to view. Letting the media companies decide what content my device can view is not an option. If companies want to cater for people who want an easy life then let them cater to that market with simple locked down boxes, but I should be able to build a device to my specs too, and still be able to access the big media content. Building a set proprietary functionality into a display device is backward.
Yeah, because you would just donate your money every time you see an elderly person in trouble. Same as how you maintain the roads, and defend the country.
In science, you hypothesise, test, then rejig the hypothesis, until you can reproduce the observed phenomenon. How do you do that if you aren't allowed to collect data ?
The FCC logo means nothing. It says that the device must not intefere with other devices, AND it must gracefully accept interference FROM other devices. If the FCC are so good, what are these other devices that you must allow to interfere with your device ?
The submitter and the so called legal expert claims this was a clear case of fair use. Considering the clip makes up part of a commercial DVD and really has no relevance to the subject matter of that DVD, I don't see any fair use claim. I don't support the current copyright laws, but whatever the lifespan of a copyright, the regulations should be obeyed. This case did not meet fair use guidelines, in fact it was an example of the rules acting as they should. Considering both sides dropped their respective claims anyway, and the clip was removed from the dvd, I don't see what the fuss is about. If I want to make a dvd of video I've shot, and add a published artists music as a soundtrack, then I should be able to. The moment I attempt to profit financially from that DVD I should get permission from the rights holder and pay a fee if required.
I don't know where to begin - You are an idiot. If you want "freedom" such as you espouse, go and live in the woods. It is not possible to have that in a civilised society. Would you prefer private police forces and private fire services too ? I know, as a resident of a so-called "socialist" country, that if I get a disease, then the state will take care of me until I die. Not until the insurance runs out. As you seem to prefer the Republicans, I wonder how you feel about McCain offering to double the tax breaks to families with children. Why should you subsidise another persons life choices ? Quite aside from the fact that the inevitable result will be MORE PEOPLE and therefore less jobs OR less money per person. That should suit the Republican company bosses - more wage slaves. There is not an inexhaustible fountain of wealth in the world or the USA. It should be divided according to contribution, not blind stupid animal sex. Not to say that Obama has a better plan. His comments yesterday regarding the banking crisis showed as much forward thinking as a lump of wood. He said that companies who could not payroll their employees deserved federal help. I'm sorry, if you are in business and can't pay the wages because you are in debt, then you aren't really in business, you are living off tomorrows chances. They should let the afflicted companies fail. The people who owe those companies money should get a free ride and not have to honour the debt. Maybe that will teach the thieving bastards a lesson, and you won't see many more people starting businesses with the intention of never making "real" profits. It's about time we all starting living in the real world, and stopped being pawns of the damn stock market.
That's not really fair. If you give responsibility to a 13 year old, and make sure they live up to it, then things run just fine. Many cultures see it as an important step in life and the 13 year olds take it very seriously. It's the west that has fucked up, by gradually removing "responsibility", until basically people are now in their 20's before they have to fend for themselves. This effect drags on for another 10 years while they "learn the ropes" of society. And we wonder why things are getting so screwed up in the west.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that if the water company suddenly decides to shut up shop, we just do without water until somebody can be found to take over the business (providing all their own infrastructure) ?
Get a fucking clue. Should microsoft be allowed to shut up shop, simultaneously sending a kill command to every computer running their OS ?
It's nothing to do with punishing those who are successful, but protecting those who have come to depend on the only game in town. There is a reason those banks got bailed out, not just to give backhanders to the well off CEOs. How many companies would go bust if the banks were left to die ? Where would YOUR wages come from ?
Sometimes you have to do things for the benefit of the larger community, but it seems, as is more and more common these days, most people are only thinking of their own pocket, and fuck the rest of you. That's how we got in this mess.
Yeah right.
For years your neighbour has been clearing his drive with a snow blower and laughing at you with your shovel. Now his blower's broken and you are considering clearing his drive for him ?
More fool you !
trying to get the average person to open a terminal in Linux to run anything would be like trying to walk a cow down a flight of stairs.
How delightfully rural !
What's wrong with ffmpeg and ffserver ? I encode swf video on the fly from a mjpeg stream originating from an IP camera. It's currently quite choppy as I can't get much more than 6 fps to stream consistently over an ADSL connection without using all the available upstream bandwidth. That is not an issue for a local source file.
This demo is only available for the next hour !
1)Open the pot facing away from you
2)They do that because people got cut on the ring pulls and also threw them on the ground.
3)Try squeezing the bottle instead of sucking the liquid.
Not everything is someone elses fault. How about those cars where the reverse gear is right next to the forward gears ? Or those stupid lights that expect you stop and let other people use the road ? The list is endless.
I'm really looking forward to the breakdown of civilisation. The majority of people will be dead within a month because they have NO COMMON SENSE !
Anybody with half a brain will be living in paradise. There was a time when people knew how to look after themselves without relying on corporations to wipe their arses and give them a tit to suck on.
Yes.
Because then we don't buy the product as it's too expensive, which forces the manufacturer to cut those costs.
No-one is forced to buy any particular brand. Unless you consider yourself a consumer - ie the lowest form of life, destined to open your wallet every time the tv tells you to. You can tax the manufacturer or the consumer but in the end it's always the consumer who pays.
Here in the UK we used to have milk delivered every day in glass bottles. The milkman used to collect the empties for washing and refilling, and the delivery was done with electric vehicles. But - it was cheaper for the milk companies to use plastic and get rid of the milkman, so now we have problem plastic going into the ground as landfill AND the milk has to travel much further to regional bottling plants then be re-transported back to its original area for sale in shops AND we have put thousands of people out of a job*. So which is cheaper in the final analysis ?
* These workers were also delivering bread, vegetables, other dairy products, and also were usually the people who alerted the emergency services when somebody was ill or incapacitated (due to yesterdays milk still being there) and also helped keep burglary and crime down by being around at times when everybody else was asleep. But no, fuck that, we want cheap and disposable. Money rules FTW.
PS/2 is a powered port, it should be shut down before removing the plug, it wasn't designed to be hot plugged.
It's laughable that you bemoan the lack of logic in anothers argument, then demonstrate your own by saying that will never happen again.
Would you care to put money on that ?
FFS, somebody open the damn box !
entirely free ?
It's not free at all, in any way.
In a word: No
You seem to be in favour of the data getting out and punishing those responsible. How does that protect my data ? Answer - it doesn't, in any way shape or form.
As for the thief only needing one more step, that's wrong too. I have a key for my ssh connections which requires a passphrase. I could use the same for files. So I would need:
a)the files
b)the key
c)the passphrase.
So no, nanny state is not accurate. Explain to me why the state is mandating encryption - oh yes, it's because companies are not doing it voluntarily, and OUR data is being traded like pokemon cards.
What other nanny state things are there ?
Well, the clean air legislation, anti-slavery legislation, minimum wage, building regulation, safe food legislation, criminal legislation, etc, etc, etc.
Are you against those too ?
You show me another way of ensuring my data is safe that doesn't require the govt. to make it mandatory and I'll show that it doesn't work.
First off, what is so sacred about legality? The law is not set in stone, it's constantly being updated, and varies wildly from location to location. I believe all knowledge to be ultimately good, and censorship will necessarily trample on that. It's digital book burning plain and simple.
Information about illegal Drug, bomb construction, racism all blurs into legitimate subjects because there are no real boundaries. That's why the law making process is difficult, and why censorship will always have side effects and is never acceptable.
So you can break the law with impunity because in 20 years time the law might be different ?
Should all cancer treatments be banned because they have side effects ? Balance is the key word. Never say never.
In a world where most people are relatively uneducated, you can't make laws that rely on the people having a first class honours degree in philosophy. So you go for practicable, not nth degree logical.
Self censorship exercise. Tell the boss what you really think of him. Here's another, your mother calls down to your basement to tell you food is on the table, you are busy - do you shout "oh for fucks sake, you bitch, just hold on a minute" or do you say " thanks I'll be there in a minute" ?
Define censorship.
So you're ok with child porn then ? Or your bank details appearing on the web ? ...
You seem to be confusing free speech with censorship. You are entitled to write/say anything you like, but no-one is forced to read/listen. In the case of your "speech" causing harm to others, then it is perfectly acceptable to have it censored.
I can stand at the corner shouting kill all muslims, but if the authorities do nothing, then the muslims think that the authorities agree and that causes trouble for everybody. So I don't get to do that.(not that I would want to)
You can't have everything you want. Do you really want to see goatse on the front page of your local newspaper ? Or should the editor decide against it ? Is that censorship ?
Argue amongst yourself
It's funny, but we used to have a word for such items - Unique
Unfortunately, idiots have misused this term so much that we have to use other terms instead.
So in revenge, I guess something can be very singleton, almost singleton, etc.
Crap.
No-one owns an IP, they are assigned. If you want a fixed IP, you pay to have it assigned to you, you don't buy it. If you don't buy it, you don't OWN it. So give them back.
Err, you got that the wrong way around.
Credit companies like people who can't pay their bills. They are the ones with a large balance on their cards, and hence, large monthly repayments.
Without the swingeing interest on balances, credit card companies would have no business model.
Way to miss the point.
The point is that the money "created" by lending on unsafe investments has been used as a basis for lending to other non-housing related sectors. This is why things are in freefall, the whole system has become dependent on a bad market.
Do you know what an analogy is ?
Maybe you noticed the implied "snip" in the parents post ?
But no, that wouldn't suit your bias, so you fired off an angry post instead. You remember the popular broken window fallacy ? Well it seems your economy has been relying on that system being true.
And your crack about the foreign lenders getting the short end of the stick smacks of US imperialism up the wazoo. Does that mean that your system works perfectly just as long as no-one actually uses it ?
or even chmod -w ~/.macromedia ?
This is precisely the opposite of what we want.
People don't want a TV OR a computer, they want to watch/see media. The TV is only a screen with built in receiving components. So separate the screen from the components, and you end up with a controller and a screen. The pc is the best controller possible. It's upgradeable not just in hardware but also software, to enable upgrades of both types of technology while keeping the same display.
You should be able to choose which software you use to manage your media, not just blindly accept whatever comes down the pipe. Your suggestion seems to accept that big media will run the (video based) internet.
Not for me thanks. I'd prefer the stream to be open and I choose what to view. Letting the media companies decide what content my device can view is not an option. If companies want to cater for people who want an easy life then let them cater to that market with simple locked down boxes, but I should be able to build a device to my specs too, and still be able to access the big media content.
Building a set proprietary functionality into a display device is backward.
Yeah, because you would just donate your money every time you see an elderly person in trouble. Same as how you maintain the roads, and defend the country.
In science, you hypothesise, test, then rejig the hypothesis, until you can reproduce the observed phenomenon. How do you do that if you aren't allowed to collect data ?
The FCC logo means nothing. It says that the device must not intefere with other devices, AND it must gracefully accept interference FROM other devices.
If the FCC are so good, what are these other devices that you must allow to interfere with your device ?
The submitter and the so called legal expert claims this was a clear case of fair use.
Considering the clip makes up part of a commercial DVD and really has no relevance to the subject matter of that DVD, I don't see any fair use claim.
I don't support the current copyright laws, but whatever the lifespan of a copyright, the regulations should be obeyed. This case did not meet fair use guidelines, in fact it was an example of the rules acting as they should.
Considering both sides dropped their respective claims anyway, and the clip was removed from the dvd, I don't see what the fuss is about. If I want to make a dvd of video I've shot, and add a published artists music as a soundtrack, then I should be able to. The moment I attempt to profit financially from that DVD I should get permission from the rights holder and pay a fee if required.
I don't know where to begin -
You are an idiot.
If you want "freedom" such as you espouse, go and live in the woods. It is not possible to have that in a civilised society. Would you prefer private police forces and private fire services too ?
I know, as a resident of a so-called "socialist" country, that if I get a disease, then the state will take care of me until I die. Not until the insurance runs out.
As you seem to prefer the Republicans, I wonder how you feel about McCain offering to double the tax breaks to families with children. Why should you subsidise another persons life choices ? Quite aside from the fact that the inevitable result will be MORE PEOPLE and therefore less jobs OR less money per person. That should suit the Republican company bosses - more wage slaves. There is not an inexhaustible fountain of wealth in the world or the USA. It should be divided according to contribution, not blind stupid animal sex.
Not to say that Obama has a better plan. His comments yesterday regarding the banking crisis showed as much forward thinking as a lump of wood. He said that companies who could not payroll their employees deserved federal help.
I'm sorry, if you are in business and can't pay the wages because you are in debt, then you aren't really in business, you are living off tomorrows chances. They should let the afflicted companies fail. The people who owe those companies money should get a free ride and not have to honour the debt. Maybe that will teach the thieving bastards a lesson, and you won't see many more people starting businesses with the intention of never making "real" profits. It's about time we all starting living in the real world, and stopped being pawns of the damn stock market.
That's not really fair. If you give responsibility to a 13 year old, and make sure they live up to it, then things run just fine. Many cultures see it as an important step in life and the 13 year olds take it very seriously.
It's the west that has fucked up, by gradually removing "responsibility", until basically people are now in their 20's before they have to fend for themselves. This effect drags on for another 10 years while they "learn the ropes" of society. And we wonder why things are getting so screwed up in the west.