The pharmacist says "yeah I've served Snoop Dogg before. One time, he asked me to get him some medication for the runs, I got a cream, and we just sat and talked while he applied it to himself. Then I applied it to myself. I didn't have the runs, but I wanted to get the most out of the experience. It was the coolest thing I've ever had happen to me."
He allows redistribution of the source, merely to a limited amount of people (based on profession rather then numbers). I guess it depends which part of open source you think signifies something to be called open source. Altering and redistribution to particular people, or redistribution to anyone?
Funnily enough, all open source licenses have limitations. So a limitation that says "only the following american government agencies" doesn't necessarily exlcude it from being open source, IMO.
Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. He said access will be limited, most likely to police, FBI and other government agencies. But if those agencies want to enhance it, or make it better, they'll be able to do so under the open source license. The license may have a clause that limits who can get access to the software, but for those who are able to access it, typical OS rights are given to them.
Or he might not know what he's talking about, and/or wanted to use the term "open source" for good free publicity.
This is why the space program is failing, they can't even launch satellites now. They had to resort to dumping an old space suit, but they didn't even manage to do that right. Yeeesh.
Here's to hoping China or Russia can do a better job.
NOTE: You may want to get an engineer to take a look at your humour chip if you take this post seriously.
That should teach those jews (used in the traditional manner, rather then derogatory manner) that use the word "gay" in the exact same manner. Although I do feel sorry for the more tolerant jews.
TFA seems to say that the charge is only to be certified to send high volume email, like mailing lists or legit bulk mail (ie spam from somewhat reputable companies)
No, it doesn't sound like it required reputable companies to sign up. Merely those who are willing to pay a fee to avoid spam detectors in order to spam people. There's no legit spam, no matter how what your congress-critters who have sold you out say.
Makes perfect sense to me. AOL saw all those spammers making so much money, they wanted a slice of the action. Now spammers have to pay a fee in order to reach AOL's customers.
Why would someone want to be an AOL customer again?
Shame you didn't stand up for your rights and take the fine to court and fight it. Sure it's just a picture, it's meaningless. But if you want the right to take pictures, you have to be willing to fight for it.
I think the moral high ground isn't to get into bed with a facist country for the sake of money. But I can see why Google fans would want to spin that in a positive way. Yes, Google could have done worse. But they're still aiding and abetting the Chinese government.
I believe that here, as in the US, more and more children are leaving school without necessary maths skills. Calculus has been remove from the maths GCSE syllabus
I've asked both my parents (aged 40) who've both led fairly different lives professionally, and both of them learnt calculus. Neither have ever had to use calculus in their life. Now sure, there are some professions where it will be needed, but I think I'd find that if I asked the average person, they would tell me they haven't used it since high school/college.
To have calculus be a required skill in highschool when it won't ever be used for the majority of people is, IMO, ridiculous. Sure a lot of the stuff in school is taught simply for the purpose of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but for an advanced specialty subject like calculus, it seems ridiculous to make it a requirement (everyone I know (regardless of age) agree calculus is difficult.
Re:getting them to know what they might love is ha
on
How to Do What You Love
·
· Score: 4, Funny
STDs mostly. I'm not kidding, 25% of Americans age 15-39 have genital herpes.
Uh-huh. And are they getting it from their teachers?
Problem is, kids are expecting to make a TON of money the first job they get (I'm included in this demographic as I don't yet have a full time job. But constant drumming into me "you're going to earn shit whatever you do" has convinced me otherwise, at first anyway), if they even want to get a job.
People are able to do what they want all the time, and they do need encouragement to pursue these goals. But they also need to be taught the importance of financial stability. My father had a job he never wanted, but it was the only thing he could do to provide for his family at 18. As he got older and his finances became more stable, he was able to pursue his dreams, and had any of them really taken off financially, I'm sure he would have seriously considered doing them full time. But they didn't immediately have money we could live on if he were to quit his proper job, so he never even seriously considered quitting his job.
That sort of situation is a good one, and one that a LOT of people (especially the more artistically inclined) should consider. And many people out there are in such situations. But it's difficult to drum this into teenagers, and so parents/teachers/adults instead go for the "you'll hate your job but you have to do it" route, with some offering the glimmer of hope "but if your lucky you'll be able to do what you want in your spare time." Kids do dream about the improbable, and unfortunately if the dreams aren't kept in check, they'll persue those at the detriment of financial stability. Sure you hear success stories, but for every one, there's an uncountable number of failures.
And what are you doing to change it? Let me guess, nothing. It's easy to be powerless, I have no pity for you (unless you're actually working towards doing something other then moaning on slashdot).
Why engage in self-immolation if you know it's going to do no good?
I know I'm not trying to save society. I am just looking out for myself. But I don't consider avoiding certain types of DRM as harming myself. If the artist decides to go with a company that will employ DRM I dislike, so be it. There's plenty of other fish out in the sea. The thing is, I've decided to look beyond what is on MTV or the local cinema, and look for quality stuff that I'll actually enjoy.
You have it a bit backwards (however given that the industry is backwards at the moment that is understandable). At the moment, you are correct. But we don't need non-profit-seeking musicians. We need listeners who don't seek out the latest crap from the RIAA, but actually seek the good stuff, and care about the product they pay for (at the moment most people simply don't care about DRM, those few that do, a majority of them will simply remove the DRM themselves). Sure marketing helps, but IMO the internet and digital content (which movies and music is already at) will place the market in a more sensible place, that is in the control of the musicians and fans.
Already webcomics are at a much more equal playing field, with success stories happening all the time (although you must remember, for every success story, there is a much larger number of failures). E-books are doing away with the differences between the big publishers and the small-time publishers.
Neither have yet to overtake print, they might not this century (I do think they will this century, but I could be wrong), but they eventually will. They are on the road to overtaking the print companies, and eventually the companies will have to change or die out.
IMO the music and film industries will follow, although I doubt we'll see much more signs until a few more years have passed. They actually have the advantage in that their content is already digital, but they are at the disadvantage in that they have monopolies that aren't present in comics or books. But despite the monopolies, I do think it is only a matter of time. But things can, and will, get ugly until they are toppled.
Problem is, people are escaping it. The comics industry use to be the same (although I'll admit, nowhere near as bad as film or music), but they have begun (as in, begun 10 years ago) moving to independants and good distribution methods, thanks to the internet. Eventually film and music will follow. However having said that, the interim will not be pretty.
Customers can help themselves by not buying the latest song, but instead look for good songs from good talent. But that will only work to a degree.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish users of Google would stop to punish Google for aiding in the unethical behaviour of censoring the Chinese people's access to the internet.
Shouldn't Peter Parker own the patent to this device? If so, I wondow what the police will be paying in licensing fees.
He allows redistribution of the source, merely to a limited amount of people (based on profession rather then numbers). I guess it depends which part of open source you think signifies something to be called open source. Altering and redistribution to particular people, or redistribution to anyone?
Funnily enough, all open source licenses have limitations. So a limitation that says "only the following american government agencies" doesn't necessarily exlcude it from being open source, IMO.
Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. He said access will be limited, most likely to police, FBI and other government agencies. But if those agencies want to enhance it, or make it better, they'll be able to do so under the open source license. The license may have a clause that limits who can get access to the software, but for those who are able to access it, typical OS rights are given to them.
Or he might not know what he's talking about, and/or wanted to use the term "open source" for good free publicity.
A piece that pretends to be an informative news article, but is in actuality, a slashvertisement.
That explains why doctors always look at a person's eyes. But what's up with the ears? A common conversation with a doctor goes:
P says "I've got the runs"
D says "Alright let me just have a look in your ears. Yup, you've got the runs."
Do they all just have ear fetishes or something?
This is why the space program is failing, they can't even launch satellites now. They had to resort to dumping an old space suit, but they didn't even manage to do that right. Yeeesh.
Here's to hoping China or Russia can do a better job.
NOTE: You may want to get an engineer to take a look at your humour chip if you take this post seriously.
That should teach those jews (used in the traditional manner, rather then derogatory manner) that use the word "gay" in the exact same manner. Although I do feel sorry for the more tolerant jews.
Really? I find having them uninstalled causes my computer to run even slower.
TFA seems to say that the charge is only to be certified to send high volume email, like mailing lists or legit bulk mail (ie spam from somewhat reputable companies)
No, it doesn't sound like it required reputable companies to sign up. Merely those who are willing to pay a fee to avoid spam detectors in order to spam people. There's no legit spam, no matter how what your congress-critters who have sold you out say.
Why would Australia On Line require people to have business headquarters in America or Canada? That's screwy if you ask me.
Makes perfect sense to me. AOL saw all those spammers making so much money, they wanted a slice of the action. Now spammers have to pay a fee in order to reach AOL's customers.
Why would someone want to be an AOL customer again?
Shame you didn't stand up for your rights and take the fine to court and fight it. Sure it's just a picture, it's meaningless. But if you want the right to take pictures, you have to be willing to fight for it.
Never been scared your girlfriend was pregnant? Oh wait, this is slashdot. Nevermind.
I think the moral high ground isn't to get into bed with a facist country for the sake of money. But I can see why Google fans would want to spin that in a positive way. Yes, Google could have done worse. But they're still aiding and abetting the Chinese government.
I believe that here, as in the US, more and more children are leaving school without necessary maths skills. Calculus has been remove from the maths GCSE syllabus
I've asked both my parents (aged 40) who've both led fairly different lives professionally, and both of them learnt calculus. Neither have ever had to use calculus in their life. Now sure, there are some professions where it will be needed, but I think I'd find that if I asked the average person, they would tell me they haven't used it since high school/college.
To have calculus be a required skill in highschool when it won't ever be used for the majority of people is, IMO, ridiculous. Sure a lot of the stuff in school is taught simply for the purpose of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but for an advanced specialty subject like calculus, it seems ridiculous to make it a requirement (everyone I know (regardless of age) agree calculus is difficult.
STDs mostly. I'm not kidding, 25% of Americans age 15-39 have genital herpes.
Uh-huh. And are they getting it from their teachers?
Well I want to be a martian colonist. Not all of us can get the job we want.
Problem is, kids are expecting to make a TON of money the first job they get (I'm included in this demographic as I don't yet have a full time job. But constant drumming into me "you're going to earn shit whatever you do" has convinced me otherwise, at first anyway), if they even want to get a job.
People are able to do what they want all the time, and they do need encouragement to pursue these goals. But they also need to be taught the importance of financial stability. My father had a job he never wanted, but it was the only thing he could do to provide for his family at 18. As he got older and his finances became more stable, he was able to pursue his dreams, and had any of them really taken off financially, I'm sure he would have seriously considered doing them full time. But they didn't immediately have money we could live on if he were to quit his proper job, so he never even seriously considered quitting his job.
That sort of situation is a good one, and one that a LOT of people (especially the more artistically inclined) should consider. And many people out there are in such situations. But it's difficult to drum this into teenagers, and so parents/teachers/adults instead go for the "you'll hate your job but you have to do it" route, with some offering the glimmer of hope "but if your lucky you'll be able to do what you want in your spare time." Kids do dream about the improbable, and unfortunately if the dreams aren't kept in check, they'll persue those at the detriment of financial stability. Sure you hear success stories, but for every one, there's an uncountable number of failures.
And what are you doing to change it? Let me guess, nothing. It's easy to be powerless, I have no pity for you (unless you're actually working towards doing something other then moaning on slashdot).
Why engage in self-immolation if you know it's going to do no good?
I know I'm not trying to save society. I am just looking out for myself. But I don't consider avoiding certain types of DRM as harming myself. If the artist decides to go with a company that will employ DRM I dislike, so be it. There's plenty of other fish out in the sea. The thing is, I've decided to look beyond what is on MTV or the local cinema, and look for quality stuff that I'll actually enjoy.
please do so in a well ventilated area. I would rather not die of toxic plastic and RIAA poisoning
Hey, I never knew there was a second type of RIAA poisoning.
You have it a bit backwards (however given that the industry is backwards at the moment that is understandable). At the moment, you are correct. But we don't need non-profit-seeking musicians. We need listeners who don't seek out the latest crap from the RIAA, but actually seek the good stuff, and care about the product they pay for (at the moment most people simply don't care about DRM, those few that do, a majority of them will simply remove the DRM themselves). Sure marketing helps, but IMO the internet and digital content (which movies and music is already at) will place the market in a more sensible place, that is in the control of the musicians and fans.
Already webcomics are at a much more equal playing field, with success stories happening all the time (although you must remember, for every success story, there is a much larger number of failures). E-books are doing away with the differences between the big publishers and the small-time publishers.
Neither have yet to overtake print, they might not this century (I do think they will this century, but I could be wrong), but they eventually will. They are on the road to overtaking the print companies, and eventually the companies will have to change or die out.
IMO the music and film industries will follow, although I doubt we'll see much more signs until a few more years have passed. They actually have the advantage in that their content is already digital, but they are at the disadvantage in that they have monopolies that aren't present in comics or books. But despite the monopolies, I do think it is only a matter of time. But things can, and will, get ugly until they are toppled.
Problem is, people are escaping it. The comics industry use to be the same (although I'll admit, nowhere near as bad as film or music), but they have begun (as in, begun 10 years ago) moving to independants and good distribution methods, thanks to the internet. Eventually film and music will follow. However having said that, the interim will not be pretty.
Customers can help themselves by not buying the latest song, but instead look for good songs from good talent. But that will only work to a degree.