Heh, look at the yellow road sign on that site and the thing coming out of the back of the bike. Is it just me, or does it look like the bike rider is doing something OTHER than distributing wifi?;)
Where I come from, we call that stealing, but I'm not about to get into a pissing contest over symantics.
That's OK, I'll do it myself.
Steal: To take the property of another without right or permission (dictionary.com)
If you walk into Best Buy and grab a copy of Photoshop, you have stolen it. When you download an unauthorized copy of Photoshop (thus creating a new copy), no stealing has occurred. You have simply created a new copy that did not previously exist, and does not "belong" to anyone at all. It's still unauthorized and still illegal, but it's NOT stealing, plain and simple. They WANT you to call it stealing, because stealing is more of a moral absolute (like "do not kill", "do not steal"). Copyright infringement is not, and certainly, there are many people who feel that copyright laws are being badly abused by many corporations and need to be revised. On the other hand, no reasonable person thinks it should be legal to walk into a store and grab whatever they want. Because that's stealing and that's different.
First off, it's "infringing" not "stealing" and yes, there is a difference.
I do agree with you to an extent though. If it were not possible to get most software without buying it, people would definitely explore OSS more. I just think "trusted" computing is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Better to simply try to keep educating people about software alternatives. A lot of people aren't even aware of OSS in the first place, and many of those who are think that it must be inferior because it is non-commercial.
However, there is also a market for systems WITHOUT these "trust" chips. And manufacturers will continue to provide systems without trust chips. If you don't want to buy a "trust" computer, don't. There will continue to be plenty of computers without this feature.
Right, until a law gets passed requiring all new hardware to be "trusted". And before you think that can't possibly happen, look at some of the semi-draconian laws that have ALREADY been passed in recent history (DMCA, Patriot Act), and then, keep in mind that companies like Intel and MS are ALREADY trying to lobby for this (i.e. some kind of DRM in all of the software and hardware, in everything).
Now, I think the chances of such a law getting passed are relatively low (kind of like the INDUCE act, because it's just TOO broad), but, the sooner we raise our concerns about all of this, the less likely it is to actually happen. If we sit complacent all the time and "just don't worry about it", bad laws will keep getting passed. And it's a lot harder getting a law shot down than it is getting it passed.
However, when all the numbers are added up, you still have an arbitrary number that has nothing to do with the number of voters and therefore lacks a general credibility.
As one of the previous posters pointed out: for each candidate on the ballot, you either mark them as "approve" or "disapprove". Make it clear to the voter that they must not skip any candidates. So, as long as every candidate is represented on every ballot, then the numbers will add up. If there are 10 candidates and 100 million people vote, you should be left with 100 million ballots with 10 yes/no choices each, adding up to 1 billion total votes. So of course: votes = (number of voters) x (number of candidates)
Additionally, by forcing voters to mark the "disapproves" as well as the "approves", you reduce the chance of someone changing a ballot by trying to approve another candidate on that ballot later (I say reduce, and not eliminate, because there are bound to be a few foolish people who don't fill out the entire ballot as they are supposed to).
Seriously, I can't stand "amusement" parks anymore for this very reason. I mean, waiting all those hours for 30 seconds of fun? Now I know how a lot of women must feel every night...
When they send out these bogus takedown messages (which has been happening often lately), they will claim they are acting on some kind of "good faith" belief that the work is copyrighted and should not be distributed. LIE. They are simply doing keyword searches and auto-spamming people when download matches come up.
Then, they will claim that they are acting on behalf of the copyright holder of the work. LIE. The work in question is not really a film, so they are NOT acting on behalf of the real copyright holder of the item in question.
If you ask me, they should at the VERY least be legally liable for the second big lie, and be forced to pay some kind of damages every time they send out something this blatantly false.
I think that's a little extreme, don't you? I mean, I remember when jail was for the murderers and rapists, not for the people who post other people's vacation pics on the internet... would that punishment really fit the crime (if a crime has been committed)? Come on now.
this is useful for detecting if people are trying to cheat by getting a chess-playing program to automatically play their moves for them.
Isn't this unavoidable, though? I mean, couldn't someone just switch back and forth between the ICC client, and say, one of the Chessmaster programs for example? (or if the client detects switching away and reports it, then have Chessmaster on another computer) Then, set the Chessmaster computer opponent to a high level, and play your opponent's moves against Chessmaster. And whatever moves Chessmaster makes, you play on ICC.
So to me, there is no possible way of preventing people from cheating in online chess. I mean this could even work in speed chess if you are fast enough, and set the timer low in Chessmaster (or whatever other program). Ideally, set it lower than the real match time, to make up for the "lag" of seeing what move to make and then making it yourself. Of course you'd have to be pretty damn fast to win a 1 minute game that way, but it could be done.
But... insects ARE animals! But just ask PETA. They make a fuss over silkworms used in the silk industries, claiming silk production causes the insects a painful death. The original comment was meant as a joke, but to be honest, they'll probably make a fuss over this too.
"What you need is a fatty boom batty blunt, and I guarantee you'll be seeing a sailboat, ocean, and maybe some of them big-tittied mermaids doing some of that lesbian shit."
"FLY, FATASS, FLY!"
And I still laugh every time at the end, during the game show, Jay yells (to T.S. impersonating the contestant "Doug"): "DO IT, DOUG!!!!"
The jumping sounds great, until the system decides that the bridge guard rail is an "obstacle" that must be jumped over! Wheeeeeee! Try making THAT ride less bumpy, Bose!
I second your comments on the Corollas. Even the later 90s models are quite good. I have a '97 Corolla and have always gotten over 35mpg. I don't know what the newer ones can manage, but those mid to late 90s models are excellent. Not to mention the thing still runs like it did when it was new, and it's closing in on 90k miles now. And I've never had a single problem with it, beyond a flat tire once. Corollas = good.
The Doomsday Engine is an enhanced version of the original Doom engine. You can use it to play any games that use this engine, like Doom 1/2, Heretic, and Hexen (you must have the original game files to do so).
This engine supports (among other things) OpenGL/Direct3D graphics, 3D sound with EAX or A3D, and even 16-person multiplayer.
I mean, let's be serious. I'm not defending Microsoft because let's face it, they have allowed some pretty serious security flaws to get into Windows in the past. But the article does mention "social engineering" and I ask you, isn't this at the root of many, many security issues? I'm not saying Microsoft is never to blame - not at all. But what I wonder is how much damage has to be done before the typical user just sits down and LEARNS a little about security. I am honestly appalled at the number of computers I see that are on the internet without ANY form of anti-virus protection - much less a firewall. Computers are certainly much more complex to operate than say, a car - and we make people go through a whole course and take a test before they're even legally allowed to drive one. Why? Because they can end up killing someone, or themselves, if they don't do it right. With a computer, it's not that severe, but you can still do some major damage (or have it done to you).
Put it this way. If the average user took the time to learn just a little more about this device that is a BIG part of their lives, and how to keep it and their private information secure, would security really be as massive of an issue as it is today? I will say this, though - I'm glad Microsoft has turned the firewall on by default in SP2. I know it's going to cause a lot of headaches, but think about it - a lot of people are hearing about a firewall for the first time thanks to SP2. Hearing about it, and being FORCED to deal with it, is a big step for the average user towards learning more about security.
Yes, I know there's currently no way to get the human back from Mars. So what? I'm sure there would still be plenty of volunteers. I know I sure wouldn't mind the peace and quiet! The only bad part is, I'd never be able to get first post on Slashdot with that kind of latency.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, look at the yellow road sign on that site and the thing coming out of the back of the bike. Is it just me, or does it look like the bike rider is doing something OTHER than distributing wifi? ;)
Where I come from, we call that stealing, but I'm not about to get into a pissing contest over symantics.
That's OK, I'll do it myself.
Steal: To take the property of another without right or permission (dictionary.com)
If you walk into Best Buy and grab a copy of Photoshop, you have stolen it. When you download an unauthorized copy of Photoshop (thus creating a new copy), no stealing has occurred. You have simply created a new copy that did not previously exist, and does not "belong" to anyone at all. It's still unauthorized and still illegal, but it's NOT stealing, plain and simple. They WANT you to call it stealing, because stealing is more of a moral absolute (like "do not kill", "do not steal"). Copyright infringement is not, and certainly, there are many people who feel that copyright laws are being badly abused by many corporations and need to be revised. On the other hand, no reasonable person thinks it should be legal to walk into a store and grab whatever they want. Because that's stealing and that's different.
First off, it's "infringing" not "stealing" and yes, there is a difference.
I do agree with you to an extent though. If it were not possible to get most software without buying it, people would definitely explore OSS more. I just think "trusted" computing is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Better to simply try to keep educating people about software alternatives. A lot of people aren't even aware of OSS in the first place, and many of those who are think that it must be inferior because it is non-commercial.
However, there is also a market for systems WITHOUT these "trust" chips. And manufacturers will continue to provide systems without trust chips. If you don't want to buy a "trust" computer, don't. There will continue to be plenty of computers without this feature.
Right, until a law gets passed requiring all new hardware to be "trusted". And before you think that can't possibly happen, look at some of the semi-draconian laws that have ALREADY been passed in recent history (DMCA, Patriot Act), and then, keep in mind that companies like Intel and MS are ALREADY trying to lobby for this (i.e. some kind of DRM in all of the software and hardware, in everything).
Now, I think the chances of such a law getting passed are relatively low (kind of like the INDUCE act, because it's just TOO broad), but, the sooner we raise our concerns about all of this, the less likely it is to actually happen. If we sit complacent all the time and "just don't worry about it", bad laws will keep getting passed. And it's a lot harder getting a law shot down than it is getting it passed.
However, when all the numbers are added up, you still have an arbitrary number that has nothing to do with the number of voters and therefore lacks a general credibility.
As one of the previous posters pointed out: for each candidate on the ballot, you either mark them as "approve" or "disapprove". Make it clear to the voter that they must not skip any candidates. So, as long as every candidate is represented on every ballot, then the numbers will add up. If there are 10 candidates and 100 million people vote, you should be left with 100 million ballots with 10 yes/no choices each, adding up to 1 billion total votes. So of course: votes = (number of voters) x (number of candidates)
Additionally, by forcing voters to mark the "disapproves" as well as the "approves", you reduce the chance of someone changing a ballot by trying to approve another candidate on that ballot later (I say reduce, and not eliminate, because there are bound to be a few foolish people who don't fill out the entire ballot as they are supposed to).
Seriously, I can't stand "amusement" parks anymore for this very reason. I mean, waiting all those hours for 30 seconds of fun? Now I know how a lot of women must feel every night...
I did not realize that. Personally, I'm glad to hear the armed forces are becoming more tolerant.
The worst part of this are two very big lies.
When they send out these bogus takedown messages (which has been happening often lately), they will claim they are acting on some kind of "good faith" belief that the work is copyrighted and should not be distributed. LIE. They are simply doing keyword searches and auto-spamming people when download matches come up.
Then, they will claim that they are acting on behalf of the copyright holder of the work. LIE. The work in question is not really a film, so they are NOT acting on behalf of the real copyright holder of the item in question.
If you ask me, they should at the VERY least be legally liable for the second big lie, and be forced to pay some kind of damages every time they send out something this blatantly false.
This is ridiculous and it has to stop.
Personally, I hope they go to jail.
I think that's a little extreme, don't you? I mean, I remember when jail was for the murderers and rapists, not for the people who post other people's vacation pics on the internet... would that punishment really fit the crime (if a crime has been committed)? Come on now.
I think we all agree, Arthur.
Hah, we both got modded offtopic for the same joke at the same time. I thought it was a pretty good joke... I take it the mods are not baseball fans ;)
Administrative Contact:
Franco, Julio (ZBIODSWBEI) julio_francoh@hotmail.com
Julio Franco is amazing! Still playing baseball at age 46, and yet he finds the time to get into home entertainment too??
this is useful for detecting if people are trying to cheat by getting a chess-playing program to automatically play their moves for them.
Isn't this unavoidable, though? I mean, couldn't someone just switch back and forth between the ICC client, and say, one of the Chessmaster programs for example? (or if the client detects switching away and reports it, then have Chessmaster on another computer) Then, set the Chessmaster computer opponent to a high level, and play your opponent's moves against Chessmaster. And whatever moves Chessmaster makes, you play on ICC.
So to me, there is no possible way of preventing people from cheating in online chess. I mean this could even work in speed chess if you are fast enough, and set the timer low in Chessmaster (or whatever other program). Ideally, set it lower than the real match time, to make up for the "lag" of seeing what move to make and then making it yourself. Of course you'd have to be pretty damn fast to win a 1 minute game that way, but it could be done.
But... insects ARE animals! But just ask PETA. They make a fuss over silkworms used in the silk industries, claiming silk production causes the insects a painful death. The original comment was meant as a joke, but to be honest, they'll probably make a fuss over this too.
it's powered by 'catching flies and digesting them in special fuel cells.'"
Just don't tell PETA.
...does it support Ogg Vorbis?
Oh and don't mod me flamebait, I'm serious! Because the Rio Karma DOES support Ogg.
Come on now. The RIAA and MPAA sure, but what's the AAA ever done to you? They've always helped me out if my car battery died or if I had a flat tire!
"What you need is a fatty boom batty blunt, and I guarantee you'll be seeing a sailboat, ocean, and maybe some of them big-tittied mermaids doing some of that lesbian shit."
"FLY, FATASS, FLY!"
And I still laugh every time at the end, during the game show, Jay yells (to T.S. impersonating the contestant "Doug"): "DO IT, DOUG!!!!"
The jumping sounds great, until the system decides that the bridge guard rail is an "obstacle" that must be jumped over! Wheeeeeee! Try making THAT ride less bumpy, Bose!
I second your comments on the Corollas. Even the later 90s models are quite good. I have a '97 Corolla and have always gotten over 35mpg. I don't know what the newer ones can manage, but those mid to late 90s models are excellent. Not to mention the thing still runs like it did when it was new, and it's closing in on 90k miles now. And I've never had a single problem with it, beyond a flat tire once. Corollas = good.
http://www.doomsdayhq.com/
The Doomsday Engine is an enhanced version of the original Doom engine. You can use it to play any games that use this engine, like Doom 1/2, Heretic, and Hexen (you must have the original game files to do so).
This engine supports (among other things) OpenGL/Direct3D graphics, 3D sound with EAX or A3D, and even 16-person multiplayer.
I mean, let's be serious. I'm not defending Microsoft because let's face it, they have allowed some pretty serious security flaws to get into Windows in the past. But the article does mention "social engineering" and I ask you, isn't this at the root of many, many security issues? I'm not saying Microsoft is never to blame - not at all. But what I wonder is how much damage has to be done before the typical user just sits down and LEARNS a little about security. I am honestly appalled at the number of computers I see that are on the internet without ANY form of anti-virus protection - much less a firewall. Computers are certainly much more complex to operate than say, a car - and we make people go through a whole course and take a test before they're even legally allowed to drive one. Why? Because they can end up killing someone, or themselves, if they don't do it right. With a computer, it's not that severe, but you can still do some major damage (or have it done to you).
Put it this way. If the average user took the time to learn just a little more about this device that is a BIG part of their lives, and how to keep it and their private information secure, would security really be as massive of an issue as it is today? I will say this, though - I'm glad Microsoft has turned the firewall on by default in SP2. I know it's going to cause a lot of headaches, but think about it - a lot of people are hearing about a firewall for the first time thanks to SP2. Hearing about it, and being FORCED to deal with it, is a big step for the average user towards learning more about security.
Yes, I know there's currently no way to get the human back from Mars. So what? I'm sure there would still be plenty of volunteers. I know I sure wouldn't mind the peace and quiet! The only bad part is, I'd never be able to get first post on Slashdot with that kind of latency.
Well, what about Gentoo users? What about people trying to validate the file with an MD5 checksum?
Just minor inconveniences? Perhaps. Could we both list examples of much, much more bothersome protection schemes? Of course.
But they are still inconveniences to (some, not all) legitimate users. Pirates, on the other hand, won't bat an eye at this.