but you should do your own research before quoting or taking other action based on their results.
Unless you don't care about the issue enough to do this (like me), or wish to use the article to reaffirm an already established opinion (most slashdotters).
Anyone who might win a suit against the government, is currently (unjustly) in Guantanamo Bay where they're refused counsel. Makes filing suits a bit difficult.
The "Justice" Dept. didn't just go after Google records, they asked all the major search engines. Google just had the nads to stand up and say no.
I'm glad I use google as my primary search engine (although being an Australian the privacy issue would be fairly minimal, I'm happy to support a company (even if they do occassionally do evil) that will protect American's privacy).
Ahhh, now we'll really see whether they can really live up their "Don't be evil" policy!
Google lost me with that when they announced plans to release DRM'd content. Some people might claim DRM isn't evil, but I simply disagree (although I do make one exception, but don't plan to make anymore in the forseeable future, not even for Google). Good to see they aren't evil all the time, although they are more then willing to help the government keep down it's citizens (see China).
im a fan of the series... but have you seen these things... acting worse than.... well, the original series.
Thanks for that commentary Mr. Shatner. But I have to disagree. I'd say the acting is about equal to the original series (which isn't saying much;)). But as I like TOS (although I wouldn't be stupid enough to pay for it, and only know one person who is stupid enough), and for free entertainment, New Voyages isn't too bad for a lazy night. I could do worse watching Ballroom bloody Dancing.
I don't understand why you think it is "fair enough" that you would have any rights to public domain material that you put on your website
The second I hit submit I realised my "fair enough" comment was ambiguous and would be interpretted that way. I meant "fair enough, that's a valid complaint."
I'm rather dubious about the claims in the article concerning bittorrent. It claimed that this "webcasters right" would kill bittorrent, public domain and caching (unless a cache allowed clause was included). I can't see how this would be possible. The public domain difficulties are correct, in that if I put up a piece of The Time Machine on my website, no-one would be able to (legally anyway) place my exact copy on their own website. That's fair enough.
But it then goes on to say that bit torrent as we know it wouldn't be able to exist under this new law (treaty?). I don't see how that's possible, due to the fact that by placing creating a bittorrent seed for an item, you're giving permission to use that seed for anyone. I can't currently grab any old item willy nilly and place create a bittorrent seed of it, why would that be any different under this law? The only difficulties for bittorrent would be public domain stuff. But that's like saying this webcasters right will kill off HTML.
You will see microsoft pulling all support for Apple out in the near future
Apple fans have taken to the street to celebrate this development.
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
But by not seeing the content on the annoying website, I have to then search for the same content on another site, which will have to have better ads. Ad-blocking and pirating software doesn't hurt (too much) the companies you are "stealing" from as it increases their brand recognition. But it does hurt alternatives which may have conditions that you like (such as less ads), but they will have less readers despite this fact, and will either die out or need to load more ads onto their website.
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Here, help yourself to some more of that free beer. Who cares, as long as you're not paying, eh?
But I'm not taking the "free beer" as I don't visit the website. If I used a ad-blocking technology then I would be taking the free beer without paying (paying being viewing the ads).
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Of course, it would also deprive sites of ad revenue
Exactly. If all it takes for a site I enjoy to remain profitable is to have one banner ad at the top, who am I to deprive them of that?
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I vote with my eyes. IGN has lost me as a reader, and other websites will as well if they go to IGN's lengths at advertising. If anyone annoys me with their ads, I leave. I don't block their ads, I simply don't read their website any more. If more people did this, there wouldn't be a need for ad blockers, as intrusive and annoying ads would be down at a minimum.
I've found Gmail's threading to be much more superior over Thunderbird's (despite Gmail's simplicity in threading, or perhaps because of it). Has thunderbird improved in this regard?
I looked up the American constitution (I don't know it off by heart, I know. I'm a terrible Australian). It has an ammendment that I think you might find informative.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now last I checked, that ammendment hadn't been repealled. Whenever the American government infringes on one of your rights as layed out in the constitution, you need to take action immediately. It is the bible in which the government knows how to act towards it's people. If it doesn't follow it in its entirety, then it will continue to break more and more parts of it. If you don't think the ammendment is necessary for America in this day and age, have it changed. But whilever it is in the constiution, it should be enforced.
Nowhere in that ammendment does it say "unless you're a terrorist or it's important to the security of the nation." And I don't think mentioning a "keyword" should be grounds for "searches" on their communication (in fact, I'd argue having a program looking for keywords in the first place counts as searching, and without probable cause at that if it is applied blindly to America's citizens).
Don't let your rights be wittled away. Or your children might not have any.
It's very easy to get labelled dangerous and get put on no-fly lists. By illegally monitoring Americans, they can then put those average, every day Americans on no-fly lists and other things to make their lives difficult. Average Americans are their target, because they can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist. Just ask the people in Guantanamo Bay.
Wouldn't real terrorists (y'know, the ones who actually pose a threat) use code? And you'd also think they'd be smart enough to use public telephones as well.
while people who supposedly "out" CIA agents, who weren't undercover in the first place, are "leakers."
Funny, I thought leakers was the term the Bush administration used. Y'know, before it was found out by the public that it was a Bush-friendly person who leaked the name.
I would investigate his motives before buying every bit of his story hook, line and sinker.
No. I would investigate whether or not it is true before buying his story hook, line and sinker. But if America just dismisses this guy because he may or may not have an ulterior motive, then that's sad. He might be insane and seething at his ex-employees. But he can still be right. This wouldn't an investigation against a citizen, but one against a government agency. Investigate, then if it's learned it isn't true, no harm done. Ignore it, and learn it was true, and a lot of harm is done.
I have a choice with those visors. Not see because of the sun or not see because of the visor. Not a great choice, and I find sunglasses just don't help me. So I hop in the left lane and drive slower then I normally do. Thankfully I rarely have to drive at that time of day.
I was careful to state it as a personal opinion on the ereader DRM.
Will I be able to read the ebook or listen to the music in 10 years? Likely no
I think it likely I will be able to, as long as I keep a record of the credit card number when it does change (once I do change it, it is safe to keep it in a text file wherever I store the e-books, although it is highly recommended you DON'T do that for your current CC number). Even if I have to get an emulator for the reader, I think it likely there will be emulators out there, there are emulators for the Atari and NUMEROUS non-famous gaming systems after all;)
So yeah, I have to disagree on that point. One of us will be proven right in 10 years time.
Slashdot Mirror
They obviously took a sample. Now how well that sample was is argumentative.
but you should do your own research before quoting or taking other action based on their results.
Unless you don't care about the issue enough to do this (like me), or wish to use the article to reaffirm an already established opinion (most slashdotters).
It's as if the patent office is run by slashdotters who want to make it so broken that patents are just done away with completely.
Anyone who might win a suit against the government, is currently (unjustly) in Guantanamo Bay where they're refused counsel. Makes filing suits a bit difficult.
The "Justice" Dept. didn't just go after Google records, they asked all the major search engines. Google just had the nads to stand up and say no.
I'm glad I use google as my primary search engine (although being an Australian the privacy issue would be fairly minimal, I'm happy to support a company (even if they do occassionally do evil) that will protect American's privacy).
Ahhh, now we'll really see whether they can really live up their "Don't be evil" policy!
Google lost me with that when they announced plans to release DRM'd content. Some people might claim DRM isn't evil, but I simply disagree (although I do make one exception, but don't plan to make anymore in the forseeable future, not even for Google). Good to see they aren't evil all the time, although they are more then willing to help the government keep down it's citizens (see China).
im a fan of the series... but have you seen these things... acting worse than.... well, the original series.
;)). But as I like TOS (although I wouldn't be stupid enough to pay for it, and only know one person who is stupid enough), and for free entertainment, New Voyages isn't too bad for a lazy night. I could do worse watching Ballroom bloody Dancing.
Thanks for that commentary Mr. Shatner. But I have to disagree. I'd say the acting is about equal to the original series (which isn't saying much
So, when do we make "first contact" with the Vulcans?
After WWIII of course. I just hope we're the mirror universe.
I don't understand why you think it is "fair enough" that you would have any rights to public domain material that you put on your website
The second I hit submit I realised my "fair enough" comment was ambiguous and would be interpretted that way. I meant "fair enough, that's a valid complaint."
I'm rather dubious about the claims in the article concerning bittorrent. It claimed that this "webcasters right" would kill bittorrent, public domain and caching (unless a cache allowed clause was included). I can't see how this would be possible. The public domain difficulties are correct, in that if I put up a piece of The Time Machine on my website, no-one would be able to (legally anyway) place my exact copy on their own website. That's fair enough.
But it then goes on to say that bit torrent as we know it wouldn't be able to exist under this new law (treaty?). I don't see how that's possible, due to the fact that by placing creating a bittorrent seed for an item, you're giving permission to use that seed for anyone. I can't currently grab any old item willy nilly and place create a bittorrent seed of it, why would that be any different under this law? The only difficulties for bittorrent would be public domain stuff. But that's like saying this webcasters right will kill off HTML.
You will see microsoft pulling all support for Apple out in the near future
Apple fans have taken to the street to celebrate this development.
But by not seeing the content on the annoying website, I have to then search for the same content on another site, which will have to have better ads. Ad-blocking and pirating software doesn't hurt (too much) the companies you are "stealing" from as it increases their brand recognition. But it does hurt alternatives which may have conditions that you like (such as less ads), but they will have less readers despite this fact, and will either die out or need to load more ads onto their website.
Here, help yourself to some more of that free beer. Who cares, as long as you're not paying, eh?
But I'm not taking the "free beer" as I don't visit the website. If I used a ad-blocking technology then I would be taking the free beer without paying (paying being viewing the ads).
Of course, it would also deprive sites of ad revenue
Exactly. If all it takes for a site I enjoy to remain profitable is to have one banner ad at the top, who am I to deprive them of that?
I vote with my eyes. IGN has lost me as a reader, and other websites will as well if they go to IGN's lengths at advertising. If anyone annoys me with their ads, I leave. I don't block their ads, I simply don't read their website any more. If more people did this, there wouldn't be a need for ad blockers, as intrusive and annoying ads would be down at a minimum.
No matter how nifty a feature is, I'd rather not send information I don't have to from my computer by default. It's just good practice.
Well I know I have no idea what you're just said.
I've found Gmail's threading to be much more superior over Thunderbird's (despite Gmail's simplicity in threading, or perhaps because of it). Has thunderbird improved in this regard?
Now last I checked, that ammendment hadn't been repealled. Whenever the American government infringes on one of your rights as layed out in the constitution, you need to take action immediately. It is the bible in which the government knows how to act towards it's people. If it doesn't follow it in its entirety, then it will continue to break more and more parts of it. If you don't think the ammendment is necessary for America in this day and age, have it changed. But whilever it is in the constiution, it should be enforced.
Nowhere in that ammendment does it say "unless you're a terrorist or it's important to the security of the nation." And I don't think mentioning a "keyword" should be grounds for "searches" on their communication (in fact, I'd argue having a program looking for keywords in the first place counts as searching, and without probable cause at that if it is applied blindly to America's citizens).
Don't let your rights be wittled away. Or your children might not have any.
It's very easy to get labelled dangerous and get put on no-fly lists. By illegally monitoring Americans, they can then put those average, every day Americans on no-fly lists and other things to make their lives difficult. Average Americans are their target, because they can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist. Just ask the people in Guantanamo Bay.
Wouldn't real terrorists (y'know, the ones who actually pose a threat) use code? And you'd also think they'd be smart enough to use public telephones as well.
while people who supposedly "out" CIA agents, who weren't undercover in the first place, are "leakers."
Funny, I thought leakers was the term the Bush administration used. Y'know, before it was found out by the public that it was a Bush-friendly person who leaked the name.
I would investigate his motives before buying every bit of his story hook, line and sinker.
No. I would investigate whether or not it is true before buying his story hook, line and sinker. But if America just dismisses this guy because he may or may not have an ulterior motive, then that's sad. He might be insane and seething at his ex-employees. But he can still be right. This wouldn't an investigation against a citizen, but one against a government agency. Investigate, then if it's learned it isn't true, no harm done. Ignore it, and learn it was true, and a lot of harm is done.
I have a choice with those visors. Not see because of the sun or not see because of the visor. Not a great choice, and I find sunglasses just don't help me. So I hop in the left lane and drive slower then I normally do. Thankfully I rarely have to drive at that time of day.
Incorrect. DRM is _intrusive_ and limiting
;)
I was careful to state it as a personal opinion on the ereader DRM.
Will I be able to read the ebook or listen to the music in 10 years? Likely no
I think it likely I will be able to, as long as I keep a record of the credit card number when it does change (once I do change it, it is safe to keep it in a text file wherever I store the e-books, although it is highly recommended you DON'T do that for your current CC number). Even if I have to get an emulator for the reader, I think it likely there will be emulators out there, there are emulators for the Atari and NUMEROUS non-famous gaming systems after all
So yeah, I have to disagree on that point. One of us will be proven right in 10 years time.