That's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far. Of course we knew Australians hosted BBQs at polling booths. Or did the BBC only just discover Australia?
Well, distros such as Ubuntu are trying to address this.
Trying is not succeeding. Linux just isn't a valid alternate for most Desktop users at this time. Sure it's addressing the problems, but it still isn't there yet.
I know Vista just keeps giving me more and more reason to overcome my difficulties with Linux. I want a computer that does what I want. Not some piece of DRM'd-up-the-wazzoo shit. (As an Australian I really dislike region coding).
But wait, then you can't sign for it (guess you were wrong about that, huh?). This conversation has gone like this: Me - this is an alternate delivery method, and you volunteer for it. You - But people sign for it the normal way Someone else - no they don't. You - oh. Well I still want the snail mail method.
Did you not see me say this is an alternate delivery method, one you volunteer for?
Sorry, these type of conversations are just frustrating.
As for the "only an idiot would agree to this" I do think that is a limitation in the SMS delivery method. But then again, how much information is REALLY on an indictment? I don't know as I've never had one. But if I had to take a guess (and I am guessing, if we've got any arrested South Korean "criminals" here at slashdot I'd love to hear how it really is) I'd imagine a lot of it is official nonesense that takes a long time to deliver very little information. Condensing that to an SMS wouldn't be too difficult.
Having said that, it's possible they will provide all the information given in a letter indictment. In some asian countries (definitely Japan, possibly South Korea?) they read entire books downloaded onto a mobile phone. If they're happy to read a novel like that, I can't see them having much problem with an indictment (ignoring the "official" feeling in a letter, which is an outdated opinion that will dissapear).
I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.
Too bad for you that the AllPeers creators don't share your opinion. I think it's a bit much to expect them to help you break the law and abuse people's copyright with a tool that they own the copyright (and they do assert their rights with the AllPeers extension and website) for. It'd be a bit hypocritical for them to create a tool whose main purpose (or add functions specifically for) abusing people's copright, and then claim that no-one can abuse their own copyright.
I also read your previous posts, and that's great you've been able to make money by giving away stuff for free (although by the way, you still own the copyright to it until you actively place it in the public domain. So unless you gave people blanket explicit permission somewhere in the book (or in person, or whatever) to do what they will with the book, they can't do whatever they want with it. Just a thought for your future endeavours).
As for creators never making money from their work (or only in rare cases), that's wrong (depending on your definition of rare;)). The webcomics community makes a ton of money from their work (most don't make a profit, most don't make a living wage, but together I'd say quite a bit of money goes to creators of webcomics).
BUT THEY CROSSED THE LINE, if people start disrespecting the whole mess, the content providers have nobody but themselves to blame.
Could you explain that to this guy please? Because he's obviously disrespected you.
You shouldn't just apply blanket statements to a wide range of people. After all, a lot of these people are respecting your rights. So to say "screw you" to all content providers (you didn't really specify the RIAA ones;)) is going a bit far.
Seriously, I don't think anyone reads EVERY letter they receive, or even if one did, would he take such a letter seriously? I can Imagine the hordes of Korean pranksters sending fake indictments around next year.
A letter has no value whatsoever, you can't reasonably expect people to react to an indictment letter the same way they'd respond to a physical message from a policeman or officer of the court. Besides, a lot of people SHARE their houses (i.e a dad and his son living together), so I can just claim that the letter was thrown away when he wasn't home.
I altered your post slightly, to prove that the same thing can (and probably was) said about letters. Your from the old school (and I do agree with you, but I do recognise my opinion is outdated). Times are moving on, and there will be whole Korean generations coming up that will think of how inefficient letter indictments were.
The fact that there are people around who will share the opinion that SMS's aren't to be taken seriously, is most likely why it's opt-in. By opting-in, you're saying you'll take any SMS indictments seriously, and will treat them as if they're a paper indictment.
I could make jokes about the indictment reading "hi ki u r b-ing indicted. u r in so much trouble!!1111" or something like that. But the thing is, SMS indictments are the future (okay, perhaps not SMS indictments as I don't know how long SMS will stay around, but whatever system replaces it). We can laugh and point and poke fun at it, but that won't change the fact our opinions will become outdated.
Wait, you mean in South Korea policemen don't come knocking on your door, they just send you an arrest warrant (in dead tree format) via the mail?
This is merely replacing one notification method (dead tree post) with another (SMS). Why is that such a big deal? If people want to get notifications in dead tree format, they don't sign up. If they find receiving dead tree mail a pain (I know I do) and want to work towards making their correspondance electronic only, they sign up and get an SMS.
It's not like they're saying "we don't have these people's addresses, so we're going to ask them to sign up via SMS." They already have their contact details, people just have a choice on the method that will be used.
No, ARIA does (same thing as RIAA) and they probably will (if they haven't already) try to stop this, or at least impose as large a tax as possible. ARIA are the ones responsible for hurting Kazaa owners.
Canadians are allowed to download and upload movies, correct? Because of the tax. So would that mean Australians would be able to upload and download as well? If so, I say bring on the tax. I hardly ever buy CDs anyway, but even if they made it a tax on computers, at least I wouldn't have to fear the TV companies banging on my door (funnily enough, Marvel comics has said it won't ever prosecute downloaders of their comics (in the foreseeable future anyway) because they view it as unsound business-wise. Guess they're profiting from people downloading their comics, if only someone would convince the courts and law-makers).
As a general rule I'd be very careful in calling it mass civil disobediance and citing policemen's knowledge (and sometimes active participation) as Australian cops (in NSW especially I believe) are well known (if only in Australia;)) as being crooked.
However I do agree that in this particular instance, you're right (although is it really civil disobediance when NO-ONE took the ban seriously? Probably including the politicians who made the law).
last of all: "Allen has been selling his Microsoft shares since he left the company, but still owns more than $3 billion worth.", sounds like somebody started to loose faith in the company there...
I think it's more likely he began to want (or perhaps needed) to liquidate his funds. He doesn't actually have a job now, right? If not, then his expensive lifestyle (from his homes and boats to his football teams and charity work) is a drain on his money. I'm sure he's planned it so he'll never have to worry about money ever again, nor will his favourite family members, but that plan most likely does involve liquidating his Microsoft stock. After all, I doubt he cares enough about Microsoft to use his stock to play an active role (does his stock give him enough power to play a role? I'm not sure how much $3 billion actually is in terms of Microsoft stock, although yes, I do realise it's a lot;)). So what else is he going to do with it? I'm sure he'll leave more then enough to look after those he cares about.
It depends if you're talking American zillions or real zillions. Much like with billionaires, Americans like to have a fairly low bar (comparitively speaking of course) for zillionaires.
This article COMPLETELY misses the point. I don't care if spammers know if I'm a university student or a fast food worker. What I do care about, is being hassled to tell them. When I buy something, I don't want to have to bother telling them my postcode, phone number, or which industry I work in. Now if it served some purpose to the item/service I was purchasing, fine. But when it's just to sell my info (or to perform their l33t marketing tools on) I'm going to get annoyed.
As advertisers work to get into my home more and more, I'm becoming less and less tolerant of them. Unobtrusive ads that don't collect or use peronal information on me, I'm fine with. But when they start serving me ads based on what country I live in, or pester me about what my age is or are louder then the shows I'm watching, I become annoyed. It isn't about privacy, it's about comfort. I'm not going to provide them with my personal information, unless they offer me a damn good reason for them to have it. They should use what information I naturally give them, and be happy they get that. The idea that it's perfectly fine for shops to expect me to answer any questions they want, is ridiculous (IMO). I'm going shopping to buy items, I'm not going shopping to provide them with demographic information for them to utilize/sell. They should remember what the purpose of their stores are, and to stop trying to be advertising firms. I'm not going to lie to them, I'm simply going to refuse to tell them. If they're going to annoy me with asking for my personal information, I'm going to annoy them by not playing along.
Someone still has to explain to me how Mars has a Global Warming issue
What the devil are you talking about? The average temperature is -63 C with the highest temperature being 20 C. I'd hardly say Mars is currently suffering from Global Warming.
If you're going to make a stupid post, at least get your facts right. Sheeesh
Because the moon is crawling with astronauts. I think there's about one person on the moon, and he's dead. And he's been burnt so it's really only his ashes on the moon.
There is something more complex to being human, or conscious, perhaps, but is there really something more complex to being self-aware? What further is necessary other than "knowing" (i.e. getting input about) what it itself is doing?
I don't think very simple programming (and that's really all that would be needed to tell if it was performing the same actions) really qualifies as self-aware. Then again, I personally believe that to be self-aware, it must first be conscious. To me awareness implies consciousness. I wouldn't really say a computer is aware of me typing in the words into this textbox. I'd use another way to describe it (and attempt to avoid implying the computer is conscious).
It isn't even "hey, that's me!" it's just "that's performing the same pattern as I am doing" (although the use of I would indicate self-awareness, I personally believe it's much more complex). It's programming would possibly allow a robot of a completely different configuration, that mirrors the pattern, to trick the robot into thinking it is a mirror image of itself.
No. The new beta appears to be only for a select group of people (I preferred Gmails invite method, especially now that there's unlimited invites). So I can't really compare the two. A review with screenshots makes it look like an Outlook clone. When will e-mail developers learn that Outlook isn't the pinacle of GUI for e-mails. Google's finally learnt it. When will everyone else?
And I personally think that Yahoo and Microsoft will continue to hurt themselves whilever they see "conversations" as some bizarre development. It's just threads (which appear in Thunderbird (yet another Outlook clone so I wouldn't be surprised if they're available in Outlook as well)) dumbed down. Nothing really that special about it.
Or it means that polar bears will die out and another animal will fill its niche. Y'know, nature might be fine with that, but as a sentient human I have a small problem.
Finally, in another article I read, (CONSERVATIONISTS FILE LAWSUIT) I have to ask exactly what, other than fund-raising, will this lawsuit remedy?
From YFA:
Listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act will provide broad protection to polar bears, including a requirement that U.S. federal agencies ensure that any action carried out, authorized, or funded by the U.S. government will not "jeopardize the continued existence" of polar bears or adversely modify their critical habitat.... will provide important protections to this majestic animal
Looks like it will protect them if successful, by forcing the American government (if it is to follow it's own laws) to not fund anything that will harm the climate of polar bears. Is it a bit much to ask people to read their own fucking articles?
Although it may not be possiple to _prove_ without a hair of a doubt that global warming is occurring, there are way too many signs saying our climate is changing drastically.
Common tactics in arguments is to misrepresent the "opponents" and turn the issue into something other then it is. Are the non-wack job conservatives (yes, they do exist. Another common tactic is to paint your opponents as inherently worse then yourself) even arguing about whether or not global warming is happening? I thought they had conceeded that point, but are now unsure if it is caused by humans.
And that's a fair point. The weather is cyclical and isn't static. So it is possible that it isn't caused by humans. Having said that, I don't know whether or not there is damning proof it's being caused by humans. That's because I keep seeing liberals just arguing about whether or not it is happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Count yourself lucky. I don't even get meta-moderation powers anymore.
When Apple stops locking up their software to only their hardware (and now in a completely artificial manner of DRM) I will consider them.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far. Of course we knew Australians hosted BBQs at polling booths. Or did the BBC only just discover Australia?
Well, distros such as Ubuntu are trying to address this.
Trying is not succeeding. Linux just isn't a valid alternate for most Desktop users at this time. Sure it's addressing the problems, but it still isn't there yet.
I know Vista just keeps giving me more and more reason to overcome my difficulties with Linux. I want a computer that does what I want. Not some piece of DRM'd-up-the-wazzoo shit. (As an Australian I really dislike region coding).
Again, let them send it by snail mail.
But wait, then you can't sign for it (guess you were wrong about that, huh?). This conversation has gone like this:
Me - this is an alternate delivery method, and you volunteer for it.
You - But people sign for it the normal way
Someone else - no they don't.
You - oh. Well I still want the snail mail method.
Did you not see me say this is an alternate delivery method, one you volunteer for?
Sorry, these type of conversations are just frustrating.
As for the "only an idiot would agree to this" I do think that is a limitation in the SMS delivery method. But then again, how much information is REALLY on an indictment? I don't know as I've never had one. But if I had to take a guess (and I am guessing, if we've got any arrested South Korean "criminals" here at slashdot I'd love to hear how it really is) I'd imagine a lot of it is official nonesense that takes a long time to deliver very little information. Condensing that to an SMS wouldn't be too difficult.
Having said that, it's possible they will provide all the information given in a letter indictment. In some asian countries (definitely Japan, possibly South Korea?) they read entire books downloaded onto a mobile phone. If they're happy to read a novel like that, I can't see them having much problem with an indictment (ignoring the "official" feeling in a letter, which is an outdated opinion that will dissapear).
I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.
;)). The webcomics community makes a ton of money from their work (most don't make a profit, most don't make a living wage, but together I'd say quite a bit of money goes to creators of webcomics).
Too bad for you that the AllPeers creators don't share your opinion. I think it's a bit much to expect them to help you break the law and abuse people's copyright with a tool that they own the copyright (and they do assert their rights with the AllPeers extension and website) for. It'd be a bit hypocritical for them to create a tool whose main purpose (or add functions specifically for) abusing people's copright, and then claim that no-one can abuse their own copyright.
I also read your previous posts, and that's great you've been able to make money by giving away stuff for free (although by the way, you still own the copyright to it until you actively place it in the public domain. So unless you gave people blanket explicit permission somewhere in the book (or in person, or whatever) to do what they will with the book, they can't do whatever they want with it. Just a thought for your future endeavours).
As for creators never making money from their work (or only in rare cases), that's wrong (depending on your definition of rare
Could you explain that to this guy please? Because he's obviously disrespected you.
You shouldn't just apply blanket statements to a wide range of people. After all, a lot of these people are respecting your rights. So to say "screw you" to all content providers (you didn't really specify the RIAA ones
I altered your post slightly, to prove that the same thing can (and probably was) said about letters. Your from the old school (and I do agree with you, but I do recognise my opinion is outdated). Times are moving on, and there will be whole Korean generations coming up that will think of how inefficient letter indictments were.
The fact that there are people around who will share the opinion that SMS's aren't to be taken seriously, is most likely why it's opt-in. By opting-in, you're saying you'll take any SMS indictments seriously, and will treat them as if they're a paper indictment.
I could make jokes about the indictment reading "hi ki u r b-ing indicted. u r in so much trouble!!1111" or something like that. But the thing is, SMS indictments are the future (okay, perhaps not SMS indictments as I don't know how long SMS will stay around, but whatever system replaces it). We can laugh and point and poke fun at it, but that won't change the fact our opinions will become outdated.
Wait, you mean in South Korea policemen don't come knocking on your door, they just send you an arrest warrant (in dead tree format) via the mail?
This is merely replacing one notification method (dead tree post) with another (SMS). Why is that such a big deal? If people want to get notifications in dead tree format, they don't sign up. If they find receiving dead tree mail a pain (I know I do) and want to work towards making their correspondance electronic only, they sign up and get an SMS.
It's not like they're saying "we don't have these people's addresses, so we're going to ask them to sign up via SMS." They already have their contact details, people just have a choice on the method that will be used.
No, ARIA does (same thing as RIAA) and they probably will (if they haven't already) try to stop this, or at least impose as large a tax as possible. ARIA are the ones responsible for hurting Kazaa owners.
Canadians are allowed to download and upload movies, correct? Because of the tax. So would that mean Australians would be able to upload and download as well? If so, I say bring on the tax. I hardly ever buy CDs anyway, but even if they made it a tax on computers, at least I wouldn't have to fear the TV companies banging on my door (funnily enough, Marvel comics has said it won't ever prosecute downloaders of their comics (in the foreseeable future anyway) because they view it as unsound business-wise. Guess they're profiting from people downloading their comics, if only someone would convince the courts and law-makers).
As a general rule I'd be very careful in calling it mass civil disobediance and citing policemen's knowledge (and sometimes active participation) as Australian cops (in NSW especially I believe) are well known (if only in Australia ;)) as being crooked.
However I do agree that in this particular instance, you're right (although is it really civil disobediance when NO-ONE took the ban seriously? Probably including the politicians who made the law).
last of all: "Allen has been selling his Microsoft shares since he left the company, but still owns more than $3 billion worth.", sounds like somebody started to loose faith in the company there...
;)). So what else is he going to do with it? I'm sure he'll leave more then enough to look after those he cares about.
I think it's more likely he began to want (or perhaps needed) to liquidate his funds. He doesn't actually have a job now, right? If not, then his expensive lifestyle (from his homes and boats to his football teams and charity work) is a drain on his money. I'm sure he's planned it so he'll never have to worry about money ever again, nor will his favourite family members, but that plan most likely does involve liquidating his Microsoft stock. After all, I doubt he cares enough about Microsoft to use his stock to play an active role (does his stock give him enough power to play a role? I'm not sure how much $3 billion actually is in terms of Microsoft stock, although yes, I do realise it's a lot
It depends if you're talking American zillions or real zillions. Much like with billionaires, Americans like to have a fairly low bar (comparitively speaking of course) for zillionaires.
This article COMPLETELY misses the point. I don't care if spammers know if I'm a university student or a fast food worker. What I do care about, is being hassled to tell them. When I buy something, I don't want to have to bother telling them my postcode, phone number, or which industry I work in. Now if it served some purpose to the item/service I was purchasing, fine. But when it's just to sell my info (or to perform their l33t marketing tools on) I'm going to get annoyed.
As advertisers work to get into my home more and more, I'm becoming less and less tolerant of them. Unobtrusive ads that don't collect or use peronal information on me, I'm fine with. But when they start serving me ads based on what country I live in, or pester me about what my age is or are louder then the shows I'm watching, I become annoyed. It isn't about privacy, it's about comfort. I'm not going to provide them with my personal information, unless they offer me a damn good reason for them to have it. They should use what information I naturally give them, and be happy they get that. The idea that it's perfectly fine for shops to expect me to answer any questions they want, is ridiculous (IMO). I'm going shopping to buy items, I'm not going shopping to provide them with demographic information for them to utilize/sell. They should remember what the purpose of their stores are, and to stop trying to be advertising firms. I'm not going to lie to them, I'm simply going to refuse to tell them. If they're going to annoy me with asking for my personal information, I'm going to annoy them by not playing along.
Someone still has to explain to me how Mars has a Global Warming issue
What the devil are you talking about? The average temperature is -63 C with the highest temperature being 20 C. I'd hardly say Mars is currently suffering from Global Warming.
If you're going to make a stupid post, at least get your facts right. Sheeesh
Because the moon is crawling with astronauts. I think there's about one person on the moon, and he's dead. And he's been burnt so it's really only his ashes on the moon.
There is something more complex to being human, or conscious, perhaps, but is there really something more complex to being self-aware? What further is necessary other than "knowing" (i.e. getting input about) what it itself is doing?
I don't think very simple programming (and that's really all that would be needed to tell if it was performing the same actions) really qualifies as self-aware. Then again, I personally believe that to be self-aware, it must first be conscious. To me awareness implies consciousness. I wouldn't really say a computer is aware of me typing in the words into this textbox. I'd use another way to describe it (and attempt to avoid implying the computer is conscious).
It isn't even "hey, that's me!" it's just "that's performing the same pattern as I am doing" (although the use of I would indicate self-awareness, I personally believe it's much more complex). It's programming would possibly allow a robot of a completely different configuration, that mirrors the pattern, to trick the robot into thinking it is a mirror image of itself.
Have you seen the new Yahoo Mail beta?
No. The new beta appears to be only for a select group of people (I preferred Gmails invite method, especially now that there's unlimited invites). So I can't really compare the two. A review with screenshots makes it look like an Outlook clone. When will e-mail developers learn that Outlook isn't the pinacle of GUI for e-mails. Google's finally learnt it. When will everyone else?
And I personally think that Yahoo and Microsoft will continue to hurt themselves whilever they see "conversations" as some bizarre development. It's just threads (which appear in Thunderbird (yet another Outlook clone so I wouldn't be surprised if they're available in Outlook as well)) dumbed down. Nothing really that special about it.
What about if it's Canadian dollars?
Or it means that polar bears will die out and another animal will fill its niche. Y'know, nature might be fine with that, but as a sentient human I have a small problem.
From YFA:
Looks like it will protect them if successful, by forcing the American government (if it is to follow it's own laws) to not fund anything that will harm the climate of polar bears. Is it a bit much to ask people to read their own fucking articles?
Although it may not be possiple to _prove_ without a hair of a doubt that global warming is occurring, there are way too many signs saying our climate is changing drastically.
Common tactics in arguments is to misrepresent the "opponents" and turn the issue into something other then it is. Are the non-wack job conservatives (yes, they do exist. Another common tactic is to paint your opponents as inherently worse then yourself) even arguing about whether or not global warming is happening? I thought they had conceeded that point, but are now unsure if it is caused by humans.
And that's a fair point. The weather is cyclical and isn't static. So it is possible that it isn't caused by humans. Having said that, I don't know whether or not there is damning proof it's being caused by humans. That's because I keep seeing liberals just arguing about whether or not it is happening.