It is a reference to one of many people caught masturbating to kiddie porn while war-driving. As I recall, one of them was naked, masturbating, looking at child porn via someone's unencrypted wireless network, all the while slowly driving the wrong way down an alley.
Users do not need a graphic obscuring their UI for one or more seconds while they are trying to get work done.
Splash screens suck. They use resources and are pulling down usability of the system in general when an application is loading. Most splashscreens are even always on top, rendering the system useless until the application is loaded OpenOffice.org, the ersatz Microsoft Office, is my scapegoat here). Where is multitasking here? I want to be able to choose what is at the foreground of my desktop. What is even worse is how programs with splash screens tend to be Java, meaning this splash screen stays on top for many seconds, perhaps up to 30 seconds while the program loads.
Personally, I really would prefer some status indicator in the users menu or in some kind of applet (KDE already does that, blinking mouse cursors and similar), but please, PLEASE do not use splash screens.
"Yes the internet is a great way to distribute music. However this does not mean its OK to download music without the creators permission. It is their choice where and how their creation is made available, not yours."
Wrong. Their rights extend only to the copy in their hand. It is their choice where and how their creation is first made available, as they hold the original. Once the cat is out of the bag, they have no rights. If they do not desire others to make copies, they have the power to destroy or not release the material. This idea of having "rights" that extend beyond the physical realm is destructive and contrary to good sense.
IBM, who pioneered open standards in processor architechture, is now making a closed-standard, proprietary chip for a vendor that likes to set rather strict terms regarding the closedness of the standard. It's sad, really.
Amazing, the hypocrisy of the slashdot crowd, swooning over GNU/linux and free software, yet willing to tolerate, even loving, a Software and hardware vendor that prevents any clone manufacturers from appearing.
You do NOT have a god-given* right to "recoup this investment". Get the facts straight: if copyright infringement was theft, the author would lose his copy whenever an unauthorized copy was made. This is clearly not the case.
The supposed immorality of copyright infringement is based on a claim of financial injury, in that the owner does not recieve payment for each copy read or listened to or installed:
* The claim of financial losses or damage is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copyist would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
* The claim of loss or damage is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.
* The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
As long as SCO's claim is being supported by none other than Eric Raymond, more and more companies are going to be ponying up the license money. With an army of lawyers, Microsoft footing the bill, and Open-Source activists wearing their logo, SCO has enough steam to be a threat for at least a few more years.
Why shouldn't we be in favor of copyright infringement?
It isn't clearly a crime, but legally. Not morally though.
The owners of the guaranteed word the rights author of material often they suffer the "harm" ; and loss" "economic; to result to copy illegal. As the majority of the arguments propose by enthusiasts of copyright, it holds little water - for several reasons: The complaint is most of the time vague , presupposes that one person copying differently would have bought a copy of editor. Is from time to time true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur. The complaint is partially fallacious because the "loss" of word; suggest events in very different matter -- events in which something they have is carried away. For example, if the actions of bookstore's of the books were burned, or if in the register obtained torn, which would be really "loss." ; We generally agree is erroneous to make these things with copies. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy duun delivers, the bookshop and editor do not lose anything they had. More suitable description would be than the bookshop and l editor obtains less income than they could have. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play the bridge instead of reading a book. In a system of the open market, any business isn't authorized to cry "foul" ; just that the prospective customer chooses not to treat them. The complaint requests the question because the loss idea of the "loss" ; on hypothesis the this have" is founded; of "should the editor; obtained paid. That is founded on hypothesis that copyright exists and prohibits to copy individual. But is just issue current: what copyright should it cover? If the public decides they can divide copies, then editor not authorized to hope to be paid each copy, and thus there cannot claim is a "loss" ; when it not. In other terms, the "loss" ; come from the system of copyright; this not an inherent part to copy. Copying in oneself evils nobody.
Sorry, I am not english specialty.
Well, aside from perhaps making OSS people look like greasy hippies, this is perhaps good news for all that are concerned about software consumers' rights. having a free software advocacy group in such an influential organization will be a good way to ensure that a wrench is thrown into the gears every time lobbyists come around, throwing their specious arguments about intellectual "property"
I think you put the quotes in the wrong place.
Try this: Some artists make modern "art", where no brushes are used, just lopping paint at weird angles. John Cage sucks.
"According to experts, several printer companies quietly encode the serial number and the manufacturing code of their color laser printers and color copiers on every document those machines produce. Governments, including the United States, already use the hidden markings to track counterfeiters."
Wow. Anyone else thinking about the massive potential for abuse? I don't mean my NGO criminals, I mean by law enforcement
And if the space shuttle's replacement will be using free software?
No, seriously folks. How do we expect to progress as humanity unless every aspect of our large scientific projects become open and shared? Space exploration is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.
Sounds more like he used 0.9. I've used it since 0.5, and it has been a fine browser all that time.
The only bad release in my memory was 0.9. Crashing, failure to perform basic tasks like opening a link, other shit like that was a problem with that release. It had bugged javascript( both for pages and internally in the UI) if I recall correctly. His flames are mostly accurate if describing FF 0.9
#still using 0.8, until switchproxy for 1.0 is released
I mostly agreed with your post, but had to nitpick-
You state that morality should not be legislated. But what is a code of law, if not a common standard of morality? What you(and many others including this troll;-} ) are offended by is that this particular christian-influenced standard of morality is enforced. But using religion and tradition as a basis for this common moral code causes problems, because the laws from such a source often cannot be defended on any rational basis.
Your suggestion, "consenting adults should not be put in jail unless they physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other", is the simplest, perhaps the only way of creating a body of law, a set of morals that all can abide by, that will be universally agreed upon, and close to invulnerable to reasoned attack.
Ultimately, there is only one crime in a truly free society, theft. For what is murder, but theft of a life? What is rape, but theft of one's bodily self-control? What is assault, but yet another theft of one's bodily self-control and safety? Any supposed crime that does not clearly appear as a form of theft is no crime at all.
If you browsed at -1, nested, you would see all the comments, with their proper relationship structure.
Re:No, A Dual Joystick Controller Really Is Better
on
Halo 2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Just like Halo wasn't. And GTA III. And GTA-VC. And countless other examples of games that start out on a console with the mfg's admonition, "X will not be released for the PC".
Tantalus was a person, or demigod, or something, that Hercules had to defeat. He gained his strength from touching the earth, so every time Hercules threw him down, he came back with strength bonus +8 vs Greeks.
One hopes that this will have an effect, if not deterring, at least taking one offender out of the equation(if jailed/executed).
This tidbit was less promising: "Prosecutors compared Jaynes and DeGroot, both of the Raleigh, N.C., area, to modern-day snake-oil salesmen who used the Internet to peddle junk like a 'FedEx refund processor' that supposedly allowed people to earn $75 an hour while working from home." People are still biting on frauds of all sort, and the internet has become the prime location for it. There is no real solution to stupidity, at least until designer babies are a reality.
The bit about headers is believable. But the opcode similarities are harder to defend- anyone know more about this and care to comment? He clearly has a motive, and should be lynched regardless of whether he actually wrote sobig.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a reference to one of many people caught masturbating to kiddie porn while war-driving. As I recall, one of them was naked, masturbating, looking at child porn via someone's unencrypted wireless network, all the while slowly driving the wrong way down an alley.
Shut the fuck up you cock-smoking teabaggers
Users do not need a graphic obscuring their UI for one or more seconds while they are trying to get work done.
Splash screens suck. They use resources and are pulling down usability of the system in general when an application is loading. Most splashscreens are even always on top, rendering the system useless until the application is loaded OpenOffice.org, the ersatz Microsoft Office, is my scapegoat here). Where is multitasking here? I want to be able to choose what is at the foreground of my desktop. What is even worse is how programs with splash screens tend to be Java, meaning this splash screen stays on top for many seconds, perhaps up to 30 seconds while the program loads.
Personally, I really would prefer some status indicator in the users menu or in some kind of applet (KDE already does that, blinking mouse cursors and similar), but please, PLEASE do not use splash screens.
http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/nigeria/map/ m2795955/gnaa.html
Now the bug chasers can enjoy ersatz Microsoft Office on their new computers! Oh, wait...
"Yes the internet is a great way to distribute music. However this does not mean its OK to download music without the creators permission. It is their choice where and how their creation is made available, not yours."
Wrong. Their rights extend only to the copy in their hand. It is their choice where and how their creation is first made available, as they hold the original. Once the cat is out of the bag, they have no rights. If they do not desire others to make copies, they have the power to destroy or not release the material. This idea of having "rights" that extend beyond the physical realm is destructive and contrary to good sense.
IBM, who pioneered open standards in processor architechture, is now making a closed-standard, proprietary chip for a vendor that likes to set rather strict terms regarding the closedness of the standard. It's sad, really.
Amazing, the hypocrisy of the slashdot crowd, swooning over GNU/linux and free software, yet willing to tolerate, even loving, a Software and hardware vendor that prevents any clone manufacturers from appearing.
If you check mozilla's FTP site, zipped binaries are still available for all versions of Firefox.
You do NOT have a god-given* right to "recoup this investment". Get the facts straight: if copyright infringement was theft, the author would lose his copy whenever an unauthorized copy was made. This is clearly not the case.
The supposed immorality of copyright infringement is based on a claim of financial injury, in that the owner does not recieve payment for each copy read or listened to or installed:
* The claim of financial losses or damage is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copyist would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
* The claim of loss or damage is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.
* The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
-Cmdr Trollco aka GNAA Tar-baby
As long as SCO's claim is being supported by none other than Eric Raymond, more and more companies are going to be ponying up the license money. With an army of lawyers, Microsoft footing the bill, and Open-Source activists wearing their logo, SCO has enough steam to be a threat for at least a few more years.
Why shouldn't we be in favor of copyright infringement? It isn't clearly a crime, but legally. Not morally though. The owners of the guaranteed word the rights author of material often they suffer the "harm" ; and loss" "economic; to result to copy illegal. As the majority of the arguments propose by enthusiasts of copyright, it holds little water - for several reasons: The complaint is most of the time vague , presupposes that one person copying differently would have bought a copy of editor. Is from time to time true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur. The complaint is partially fallacious because the "loss" of word; suggest events in very different matter -- events in which something they have is carried away. For example, if the actions of bookstore's of the books were burned, or if in the register obtained torn, which would be really "loss." ; We generally agree is erroneous to make these things with copies. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy duun delivers, the bookshop and editor do not lose anything they had. More suitable description would be than the bookshop and l editor obtains less income than they could have. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play the bridge instead of reading a book. In a system of the open market, any business isn't authorized to cry "foul" ; just that the prospective customer chooses not to treat them. The complaint requests the question because the loss idea of the "loss" ; on hypothesis the this have" is founded; of "should the editor; obtained paid. That is founded on hypothesis that copyright exists and prohibits to copy individual. But is just issue current: what copyright should it cover? If the public decides they can divide copies, then editor not authorized to hope to be paid each copy, and thus there cannot claim is a "loss" ; when it not. In other terms, the "loss" ; come from the system of copyright; this not an inherent part to copy. Copying in oneself evils nobody. Sorry, I am not english specialty.
Well, aside from perhaps making OSS people look like greasy hippies, this is perhaps good news for all that are concerned about software consumers' rights. having a free software advocacy group in such an influential organization will be a good way to ensure that a wrench is thrown into the gears every time lobbyists come around, throwing their specious arguments about intellectual "property"
And that- is the sound of things going right over your head.
I think you put the quotes in the wrong place.
Try this: Some artists make modern "art", where no brushes are used, just lopping paint at weird angles. John Cage sucks.
GNAA
"According to experts, several printer companies quietly encode the serial number and the manufacturing code of their color laser printers and color copiers on every document those machines produce. Governments, including the United States, already use the hidden markings to track counterfeiters."
Wow. Anyone else thinking about the massive potential for abuse? I don't mean my NGO criminals, I mean by law enforcement
And if the space shuttle's replacement will be using free software? No, seriously folks. How do we expect to progress as humanity unless every aspect of our large scientific projects become open and shared? Space exploration is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.
Sounds more like he used 0.9. I've used it since 0.5, and it has been a fine browser all that time.
The only bad release in my memory was 0.9. Crashing, failure to perform basic tasks like opening a link, other shit like that was a problem with that release. It had bugged javascript( both for pages and internally in the UI) if I recall correctly. His flames are mostly accurate if describing FF 0.9
#still using 0.8, until switchproxy for 1.0 is released
I mostly agreed with your post, but had to nitpick-
;-} ) are offended by is that this particular christian-influenced standard of morality is enforced. But using religion and tradition as a basis for this common moral code causes problems, because the laws from such a source often cannot be defended on any rational basis.
You state that morality should not be legislated. But what is a code of law, if not a common standard of morality? What you(and many others including this troll
Your suggestion, "consenting adults should not be put in jail unless they physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other", is the simplest, perhaps the only way of creating a body of law, a set of morals that all can abide by, that will be universally agreed upon, and close to invulnerable to reasoned attack.
Ultimately, there is only one crime in a truly free society, theft. For what is murder, but theft of a life? What is rape, but theft of one's bodily self-control? What is assault, but yet another theft of one's bodily self-control and safety?
Any supposed crime that does not clearly appear as a form of theft is no crime at all.
If you browsed at -1, nested, you would see all the comments, with their proper relationship structure.
Just like Halo wasn't. And GTA III. And GTA-VC. And countless other examples of games that start out on a console with the mfg's admonition, "X will not be released for the PC".
Correct. Columbia, used correctly, refers to the American continent(s).
Tantalus was a person, or demigod, or something, that Hercules had to defeat. He gained his strength from touching the earth, so every time Hercules threw him down, he came back with strength bonus +8 vs Greeks.
One hopes that this will have an effect, if not deterring, at least taking one offender out of the equation(if jailed/executed).
This tidbit was less promising: "Prosecutors compared Jaynes and DeGroot, both of the Raleigh, N.C., area, to modern-day snake-oil salesmen who used the Internet to peddle junk like a 'FedEx refund processor' that supposedly allowed people to earn $75 an hour while working from home."
People are still biting on frauds of all sort, and the internet has become the prime location for it.
There is no real solution to stupidity, at least until designer babies are a reality.
The bit about headers is believable. But the opcode similarities are harder to defend- anyone know more about this and care to comment? He clearly has a motive, and should be lynched regardless of whether he actually wrote sobig.