I believe the author was Kevin J Anderson (great author btw). It wasn't so much he was "fed up" but wanted his book to be as scientifically correct as possible so he made up the explanation (and Lucas Arts didn't complain).
Oh, and "COMIC BOOKS" are real books nowadays, you know. Go to a bookstore sometime, they probably have several shelves full of highly respected works of graphic fiction...
I went, and saw nothing. But then again, perhaps this phenomena is limited to America? America's dumbing down it's books by making them smaller (this is actually a demand by some major American bookchains) and splitting up larger novels into "bite-size." I guess masquerading comic books as real books is just part of the process.
Yeah, I love how gmail has barely been mentioned because it's still in beta. Most people haven't even heard of gmail, although once it's out of beta I'm sure plenty of people will use it then, unlike now.
Nope. But I see it as an unfortunate, but necessary, part of providing plenty of people, such as people in countries where they're being persecuted, to speak out and remain anonymous. Will bad people use it? Unfortunately yes. But will good people use it? Yes. And it's them I provide the service for. If I could stop child pornographers from using my service, I would. But I can't, and I'm not going to not offer the service because of terrorists. Once I do that, the terrorists (and the government) win.
The nodes are what people use to remain anonymous. They nodes themselves need to be well-known so they can be used. 100 people use node X. Someone from China could use node X or someone from America could use Node X or someone from England could use Node X. How do you know where any of those people live, by knowing where node X is?
Answer: You can't know. Hence the people using Node X remain anonymous.
No machine is ever-ending. All things, both human and machine, die. It's only a matter of when (and with modern machines, it's going to be sooner then the human;)).
I doubt very much they had to keep tabs basic to save customers from "becoming scared." Simply having two radio buttons in advanced preferences or something tucked away in several levels allowing people to enable more advanced features would have stopped anyone from 'being scared away' of the evil tabs.
No, this is simply so the IE programmers didn't have to program anything too complex. They wanted to do as little work as possible, and then claim that they're doing it FOR the customers.
I suppose Microsoft rapes me up the ass with their licence for my "protection" as well? To stop me from doing anything "dangerous" to a product I supposedly own.
That's a far cry from the killing that the OP suggested would occur. Is this going to be bad for business? If it's cheaper then what the diamond miners are asking for, you bet ya. And in typical fashion, the diamond miners will lobby for laws. But killing off scientists? Nope. From what has been said, the OP was out-there on that claim.
There's a tiny difference between "killing and forcing people to become unemployed" and "stockpiling."
As I said, is there any evidence the diamond industry has had grants recused on people creating artificial diamonds and/or killed people because they created artificial diamonds?
I hope you have big text at the top of your page announcing that blind people who use text-to-speech software may not visit your website. Damn those filthy blind people.
I'm taking a course at university at the moment called "Software Interface Design" and it has quite a bit about designing experiences. It mentions that website creators tend to see visitors as something external to their content. However the course claims that website creators need to get rid of this outdated opinion and see users as part of the experience in the website, that the user will change how they view the content.
Don't be a soup nazi. How I modify how my browser renders your website will only enhance my experience in viewing it. Why do you want to limit people in such a fundamental way? Why do you want me to not have the best experience I can in visiting your website?
This isn't distributing derived art, but distributing paint (the script), a paintbrush (greasemonkey) and instructions on how to apply the paint to the painting (instructions on how to install the script and use it with the site).
Paint, paintbrush and instructions aren't derived art. Neither are scripts, greasemonkey or instructions to use the script (now if you have screenshots, that may be another story).
People who use a script that changes the site, and breaks the site, will very quickly realize the site is being broken. They'll either modify the script until it no longer breaks the page (and continue to use the script and site until they notice another problem) or will abandon the script. You don't need to take into account "every possible change" merely enough to get the site working (and of course worn anyone you share the script with that it may break the site).
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the author was Kevin J Anderson (great author btw). It wasn't so much he was "fed up" but wanted his book to be as scientifically correct as possible so he made up the explanation (and Lucas Arts didn't complain).
Oh, and "COMIC BOOKS" are real books nowadays, you know. Go to a bookstore sometime, they probably have several shelves full of highly respected works of graphic fiction...
I went, and saw nothing. But then again, perhaps this phenomena is limited to America? America's dumbing down it's books by making them smaller (this is actually a demand by some major American bookchains) and splitting up larger novels into "bite-size." I guess masquerading comic books as real books is just part of the process.
One-computer per password is fairly expensive though. I also use different computers to log into the same site.
Yeah, I love how gmail has barely been mentioned because it's still in beta. Most people haven't even heard of gmail, although once it's out of beta I'm sure plenty of people will use it then, unlike now.
Hope you don't mind everyone knowing your bookmarks.
They were going to see Star Wars!
Not Star Whores.
But they were using Tor, so how could you know their IP?
Is that one way or return?
do you want to....[bad stuff]
Nope. But I see it as an unfortunate, but necessary, part of providing plenty of people, such as people in countries where they're being persecuted, to speak out and remain anonymous. Will bad people use it? Unfortunately yes. But will good people use it? Yes. And it's them I provide the service for. If I could stop child pornographers from using my service, I would. But I can't, and I'm not going to not offer the service because of terrorists. Once I do that, the terrorists (and the government) win.
The nodes are what people use to remain anonymous. They nodes themselves need to be well-known so they can be used. 100 people use node X. Someone from China could use node X or someone from America could use Node X or someone from England could use Node X. How do you know where any of those people live, by knowing where node X is?
Answer: You can't know. Hence the people using Node X remain anonymous.
They're using a particle accelerator hey? Well I hope if anything goes wrong they remember to depolarize the fibrulator.
At slashdot we obey the laws of thermodynamics! Now go and destroy your perpetual motion device.
No machine is ever-ending. All things, both human and machine, die. It's only a matter of when (and with modern machines, it's going to be sooner then the human ;)).
Tabs are turn offable in Firefox. Sheeesh. In fact, it took me fiddling with the settings to make it so new windows don't pop up.
I doubt very much they had to keep tabs basic to save customers from "becoming scared." Simply having two radio buttons in advanced preferences or something tucked away in several levels allowing people to enable more advanced features would have stopped anyone from 'being scared away' of the evil tabs.
No, this is simply so the IE programmers didn't have to program anything too complex. They wanted to do as little work as possible, and then claim that they're doing it FOR the customers.
I suppose Microsoft rapes me up the ass with their licence for my "protection" as well? To stop me from doing anything "dangerous" to a product I supposedly own.
That's a far cry from the killing that the OP suggested would occur. Is this going to be bad for business? If it's cheaper then what the diamond miners are asking for, you bet ya. And in typical fashion, the diamond miners will lobby for laws. But killing off scientists? Nope. From what has been said, the OP was out-there on that claim.
There's a tiny difference between "killing and forcing people to become unemployed" and "stockpiling."
As I said, is there any evidence the diamond industry has had grants recused on people creating artificial diamonds and/or killed people because they created artificial diamonds?
Not everything can be mass produced.
Why do you hate America? And more importantly, was your hate mass produced?
Got any evidence of this happening in the past? Or has your tin-foil cap bubbled your brain away?
I hope you have big text at the top of your page announcing that blind people who use text-to-speech software may not visit your website. Damn those filthy blind people.
I'm taking a course at university at the moment called "Software Interface Design" and it has quite a bit about designing experiences. It mentions that website creators tend to see visitors as something external to their content. However the course claims that website creators need to get rid of this outdated opinion and see users as part of the experience in the website, that the user will change how they view the content.
Don't be a soup nazi. How I modify how my browser renders your website will only enhance my experience in viewing it. Why do you want to limit people in such a fundamental way? Why do you want me to not have the best experience I can in visiting your website?
For example a GM script gets rid of the whole Flash thing on flicker, to replace it with regular images and JS events.
I think I'm ni love with Greasemonkey.
This isn't distributing derived art, but distributing paint (the script), a paintbrush (greasemonkey) and instructions on how to apply the paint to the painting (instructions on how to install the script and use it with the site).
Paint, paintbrush and instructions aren't derived art. Neither are scripts, greasemonkey or instructions to use the script (now if you have screenshots, that may be another story).
People who use a script that changes the site, and breaks the site, will very quickly realize the site is being broken. They'll either modify the script until it no longer breaks the page (and continue to use the script and site until they notice another problem) or will abandon the script. You don't need to take into account "every possible change" merely enough to get the site working (and of course worn anyone you share the script with that it may break the site).
I'm pretty sure fair use grants you (as in, all Americans) all of the rights you quoted.
I lisense my prists under the GPL, so your welcome ta correct my sepling any time you want too ;)