copying a PPV movie and keeping it, which only deprives the distributor of potential future income that you were probably never going to give them anyway.
And violates a tacit agreement between the purchaser and the seller.
That's the point of the parent post: you might not agree with the policy that you are not allowed to make a copy of a PPV showing (and I agree, for a few reasons), but it's not like they are trying to pull a fast one on you. What part of "Pay Per View" is difficult to understand? The terms of the agreement are quite clear, and they're probably enforceable by current law here in the US, for better or worse.
I dont know for sure but I think that the windows layer in OS/2 was basicly something like WINE (in that it translated windows calls into OS/2 calls)
I suspect it's another ABI built into the kernel rather than a userland service like WINE. This isn't at all unusual. NT, BSD, and Linux all support binaries for other operating systems in the kernel, to one degree or another.
It would be analagous to WINE if WINE were a Linux kernel module. Which has been discussed, but never done.
Yeah. The sad part is that this person isn't joking:
As a US citizen, I want to advise you that you and anyone that participates in subverting the US presidential election can be criminally charged and perhaps even charged as spies. You radical leftwingers are worse than the Taliban. I suggest you stand back and take a good hard look at yourselves.
Anyone who thinks a letter writing campaign is a big problem has lost some perspective. Anyone who compares "leftwingers" with the Taliban or thinks letter writers ought to be charged as spies... is well conditioned and ready for the election! Four more years!
You know what offends me about that whole deal? That a foreign citizen/corporation could buy, from the local city/county/state government, a list of US citizens, names, home addresses and party affiliations for a very few dollars.
Not that I'd have anything to hide, but its nunya dam bidniz!
I'm all for it, actually. I'd like the whole political process to be as transparent as that aspect of it.
The address part would perhaps be more troubling in a parliamentary system where there are lots of (effective) parties, some of which are very small minorities. In that case you can see where harassment or intimidation might occur. In a two party system where one party is always fairly well represented that is a lot less likely. (not that it should ever happen in a well-policed and civil society...)
I do think social security numbers should be purged from voter registration records before they are released to the public. Appallingly, they sometimes aren't.
Due to this much of OS/2 is in NT and much of NT is in OS/2, which is why OS/2 could run Windows 3.1 apps natively without and user intervention.
You've basically got a good point, but... there were copies of OS/2 sold which could NOT run Windows 3.1 programs unless you provided your own copy of windows. These copies were sold at a lower cost. There's probably plenty of code in OS/2 that Microsoft has rights to, but that's not necessarily related to windows at all.
OS/2 had a Win3.1 VM that worked so well Microsoft had to implement Win95/NT 4.0 style API's to break the compatibility.
win16 support in OS/2 was nothing like a VM, in the way most are used to thinking about them. Just thought I should point that out.
Yep, pretty much right. A non-American's opinion in the 2004 presidential election is pretty much as irrelevant as it gets. Likewise, my opinion on Tony Blair's campaign is also irrelevant. If you really care that much, you can immigrate.
Maybe it's just me, but as an Ohioan I suspect a personal letter from someone in the UK would be vastly more interesting than the pure crap I'm getting from the campaigns in the mail and on TV. If someone (a real person, and not a political campaign or corporation or something) wants to share their opinion with me, I'd probably look at it. Why not? It's just as unlikely to sway my opinion as the rest of the stuff. Anyone who bases their decisions in an election on any one data point, particularly something they saw in an advertisement, isn't really doing their job as a citizen IMO.
But the angry reaction to the letter writing campaign strikes me as jingoistic and immature, at the least. Yes, the letters are unlikely to tell us anything we don't know, and we've got enough pure opinion pieces to wade through already. But if a sincere person (a citizen of our most important ally in Iraq, I might add) thinks it's worthwhile to send me a personal letter, I'm going to read the thing. It probably won't be of political interest but it might be interesting on a personal level.
Hell, within the last week, they had to start using Akamai! That alone should prove to a normal person that there are clearly traffic concerns at play.
Actually, that should prove to a "normal person" (whatever that means) that the traffic concerns have been alleviated, and there is some other reason for the blocking.
I hope this will help to understand why Debian users and developers are often outraged when people ask when the new version of Debian is released.
Unfortunately not.
I would like to ask a more important question: what does it actually mean that Debian Sarge is released as stable? And as it turns out, it means changing the "stable [debian.org]" symlink from "woody [debian.org]" to "sarge [debian.org]."
Who says rhetorical questions dumb down the discourse?:)
And you think you've shown... what... exactly? We were talking about a statistical trend and you linked to a specific instance. Irrelevant.
Keep in mind most sorties are not airstrikes.
I certainly am not an expert on military terminology. The point stands: the military quotes a success rate for avoiding collateral damage during these "precision" airstrikes in the high ninty-percent range. There are an awful lot of airstrikes. Do the math.
I'm not saying it's bad that we don't hear all about each failed airstrike, either. As long as people know it is happening, that's the important thing.
If Borland are being stinky, and poeople are starting to suffer from being "locked in" (even thought it was nice while it lasted) then its time to look at:
wxPython [freshmeat.net] and Boa Constructor [freshmeat.net], a python IDE and RAD style designer.
Unfortunately, comparing Boa Constructor to something like BCB is like comparing a couple of sticks you intend to rub together very quickly to an acetyline torch. They're not in the same ballpark. They're not even playing the same sport. Boa Constructor is great but it doesn't help these people - it's just a different target audience.
If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.
No. If that were the case the whole bit could be automated. It's not.
Editors make decisions about what gets posted. They just happen to be very bad at it. But there is an editorial process, of sorts.
Nobody comes here for just the stories, it's the comments on those that are important
On the contrary, I'm sure there are lots of people who read the links but only glance at the comments, or do not even look at the comments. I tend to read it that way, depending on how much time I have and how much tolerance I'm feeling.
In other words, the O'Gara article came out, and slashdot linked to it. Then the groklaw correction came out, and slashdot linked to it too.
And in both cases an editorial decision was involved.
Now a bomb goes awry and kills a half dozen people and
the news jumps all over it.
Not really, no. Even by conservative measures, you can calculate out the number of sorties and the most favorable percentage of civilian "collateral damage" and you'll find that there are a lot more tragic bombing events than the ones which become big news items. It's much the same as murders in America, the number of stories reported in the news is not representative of how many are actually happening.
Back in the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraqi military was the 4th largest in the world and wasn't exactly a 3rd World miltary.
I remember that time and how the Iraqi military was described as being pretty formidible. The size of their army was bandied about a lot, but the fact that they had a small air force that didn't even fly at night (too dangerous!) wasn't mentioned quite as much.
Once their air force bugged out (on like the 2nd day of the war, IIRC) it was pretty much all over. Having a big, well-trained army isn't that great if you can't keep it from being carpet bombed.
All in all, the soldiers were lied to. Not so much about
why they were fighting, but who they were fighting. A war against Saddam has turned into a war against Iraq - something they were never prepared to fight.
Just a little refresher: they were told that they were fighting because Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to the American people. The "why" was a lie too.
I am not saying that you should not be able to talk against the war, but the sad truth is when an insurgent reads on the internet that half of America hates the war and political parties want to just "up and leave", well that gives him the hope to shoot another few people in camouflage, and abduct a few more reporters because if it lasts long enough, America might just "up and leave" just like Vietnam.
Thanks for sharing the "sad truth"! Crazy me, I would have thought terrorists get a lot more motivation from their insane religious leaders and fellow fanatics who are egging them on than they do from internet chat.
When the Allied forces occupied the Axis territories, they didn't do so well. Looting, rape, and civil disorder was the norm for several *years*.
Um... no. It was worse in the Russian occupation areas, but even there, "looting and rape" were never "the norm." You just have no idea what you're talking about.
We are trying to bring 1500 years of human innovation to a culture that is still set back in the middle ages. Who has ever done this successfully? Oh that's right, we have.
We don't even know for sure what it is that makes us humans, otherwise, philosophy would use the scientific method and most philosophers would agree with each other.
What does that sentence even mean?
1. We know just fine what makes us humans. It's just a label, and right now at a least, it's a very easy label to apply. There might eventually be some confusion over the point if we eventually have mind uploading or true AI or something, but we don't.
2. It is absolutely not a sign of maturity or distinction for all of the members of a given field to "agree with each other." A field like that would probably be pretty boring and useless.
I think that as we invent new tools, those tools will make us evolve further, thus enabling us to invent better tools and further evolving...
This is what's been happening since we discovered how to make fire all by ourselves.
Any example you would care to give would probably exhibit a severe abuse of the meaning of "evolve."
It's very easy to see how our evolution gives us the ability to create and use new tools. But to say that "tools make us evolve" is a pretty bizarre claim, unless your definition of "evolution" is just "knowing how to do more stuff." Which is more properly known as "learning."
IANAL and I don't know about India's legal system, but I don't think they have the sue-for-every-mistake mentality we do here. Remember, doctors are people too and they sometimes make mistakes.
Or possibly, they have an insurance system that requires insurers to actually explain the math behind their insurance premiums.
We where
in need of IVF (in vitro fertalization) and this is typically not covered by insurance companies in the US. Some numbers [inciid.org] suggest up to 2 million americans are in need of this procedure.
No, you weren't. You see, you've misused the word "need" above. It typically implies a high degree of necessity. A correct example would be:
"Hundreds of thousands of children were in need of adoption last year."
Dental and health plans are typically separate. Having a high quality medical plan in no way guarantees that you'll have a high quality dental plan. It's pretty common to have decent health and lousy dental insurance.
I think "vision" is also typically a separate plan. Why some things get spun off into their own category when they are still clearly health issues is a mystery to me...
Re:If You Want a Serious Answer... Don't Get Cute
on
Rob Pike Responds
·
· Score: 1
Well, as the guy who asked the question, I'm not so sure that the analogy to MAD (or Mutually Assured Destruction for those to young to remember) is all that extreme.
Then you seriously need to remove your head from your ass.
Here's a hint: in a patent lawuit, everyone in the entire world doesn't die. You're welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Pulled that figure out of your ass?
When there are more than a few dozen people who want one.
And violates a tacit agreement between the purchaser and the seller.
That's the point of the parent post: you might not agree with the policy that you are not allowed to make a copy of a PPV showing (and I agree, for a few reasons), but it's not like they are trying to pull a fast one on you. What part of "Pay Per View" is difficult to understand? The terms of the agreement are quite clear, and they're probably enforceable by current law here in the US, for better or worse.
I suspect it's another ABI built into the kernel rather than a userland service like WINE. This isn't at all unusual. NT, BSD, and Linux all support binaries for other operating systems in the kernel, to one degree or another.
It would be analagous to WINE if WINE were a Linux kernel module. Which has been discussed, but never done.
Yeah. The sad part is that this person isn't joking:
As a US citizen, I want to advise you that you and anyone that participates in subverting the US presidential election can be criminally charged and perhaps even charged as spies.
You radical leftwingers are worse than the Taliban. I suggest you stand back and take a good hard look at yourselves.
Anyone who thinks a letter writing campaign is a big problem has lost some perspective. Anyone who compares "leftwingers" with the Taliban or thinks letter writers ought to be charged as spies... is well conditioned and ready for the election! Four more years!
I fear for the race.
I'm all for it, actually. I'd like the whole political process to be as transparent as that aspect of it.
The address part would perhaps be more troubling in a parliamentary system where there are lots of (effective) parties, some of which are very small minorities. In that case you can see where harassment or intimidation might occur. In a two party system where one party is always fairly well represented that is a lot less likely. (not that it should ever happen in a well-policed and civil society...)
I do think social security numbers should be purged from voter registration records before they are released to the public. Appallingly, they sometimes aren't.
You've basically got a good point, but... there were copies of OS/2 sold which could NOT run Windows 3.1 programs unless you provided your own copy of windows. These copies were sold at a lower cost. There's probably plenty of code in OS/2 that Microsoft has rights to, but that's not necessarily related to windows at all.
win16 support in OS/2 was nothing like a VM, in the way most are used to thinking about them. Just thought I should point that out.
Maybe it's just me, but as an Ohioan I suspect a personal letter from someone in the UK would be vastly more interesting than the pure crap I'm getting from the campaigns in the mail and on TV. If someone (a real person, and not a political campaign or corporation or something) wants to share their opinion with me, I'd probably look at it. Why not? It's just as unlikely to sway my opinion as the rest of the stuff. Anyone who bases their decisions in an election on any one data point, particularly something they saw in an advertisement, isn't really doing their job as a citizen IMO.
But the angry reaction to the letter writing campaign strikes me as jingoistic and immature, at the least. Yes, the letters are unlikely to tell us anything we don't know, and we've got enough pure opinion pieces to wade through already. But if a sincere person (a citizen of our most important ally in Iraq, I might add) thinks it's worthwhile to send me a personal letter, I'm going to read the thing. It probably won't be of political interest but it might be interesting on a personal level.
Actually, that should prove to a "normal person" (whatever that means) that the traffic concerns have been alleviated, and there is some other reason for the blocking.
Or the fact that defamation isn't the same thing as copyright infringement. Incidentally, there are treaties governing copyright infringement.
No. It would be number one if all those machines were running Linpack instead of Seti@home.
Unfortunately not.
Who says rhetorical questions dumb down the discourse?
And you think you've shown... what... exactly? We were talking about a statistical trend and you linked to a specific instance. Irrelevant.
I certainly am not an expert on military terminology. The point stands: the military quotes a success rate for avoiding collateral damage during these "precision" airstrikes in the high ninty-percent range. There are an awful lot of airstrikes. Do the math.
I'm not saying it's bad that we don't hear all about each failed airstrike, either. As long as people know it is happening, that's the important thing.
Unfortunately, comparing Boa Constructor to something like BCB is like comparing a couple of sticks you intend to rub together very quickly to an acetyline torch. They're not in the same ballpark. They're not even playing the same sport. Boa Constructor is great but it doesn't help these people - it's just a different target audience.
No. If that were the case the whole bit could be automated. It's not.
Editors make decisions about what gets posted. They just happen to be very bad at it. But there is an editorial process, of sorts.
On the contrary, I'm sure there are lots of people who read the links but only glance at the comments, or do not even look at the comments. I tend to read it that way, depending on how much time I have and how much tolerance I'm feeling.
And in both cases an editorial decision was involved.
Not really, no. Even by conservative measures, you can calculate out the number of sorties and the most favorable percentage of civilian "collateral damage" and you'll find that there are a lot more tragic bombing events than the ones which become big news items. It's much the same as murders in America, the number of stories reported in the news is not representative of how many are actually happening.
They just can't report them all.
I remember that time and how the Iraqi military was described as being pretty formidible. The size of their army was bandied about a lot, but the fact that they had a small air force that didn't even fly at night (too dangerous!) wasn't mentioned quite as much.
Once their air force bugged out (on like the 2nd day of the war, IIRC) it was pretty much all over. Having a big, well-trained army isn't that great if you can't keep it from being carpet bombed.
Just a little refresher: they were told that they were fighting because Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to the American people. The "why" was a lie too.
Thanks for sharing the "sad truth"! Crazy me, I would have thought terrorists get a lot more motivation from their insane religious leaders and fellow fanatics who are egging them on than they do from internet chat.
Um... no. It was worse in the Russian occupation areas, but even there, "looting and rape" were never "the norm." You just have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you on crack?
What does that sentence even mean?
1. We know just fine what makes us humans. It's just a label, and right now at a least, it's a very easy label to apply. There might eventually be some confusion over the point if we eventually have mind uploading or true AI or something, but we don't.
2. It is absolutely not a sign of maturity or distinction for all of the members of a given field to "agree with each other." A field like that would probably be pretty boring and useless.
Any example you would care to give would probably exhibit a severe abuse of the meaning of "evolve."
It's very easy to see how our evolution gives us the ability to create and use new tools. But to say that "tools make us evolve" is a pretty bizarre claim, unless your definition of "evolution" is just "knowing how to do more stuff." Which is more properly known as "learning."
Or possibly, they have an insurance system that requires insurers to actually explain the math behind their insurance premiums.
No, you weren't. You see, you've misused the word "need" above. It typically implies a high degree of necessity. A correct example would be:
"Hundreds of thousands of children were in need of adoption last year."
Dental and health plans are typically separate. Having a high quality medical plan in no way guarantees that you'll have a high quality dental plan. It's pretty common to have decent health and lousy dental insurance.
I think "vision" is also typically a separate plan. Why some things get spun off into their own category when they are still clearly health issues is a mystery to me...
Then you seriously need to remove your head from your ass.
Here's a hint: in a patent lawuit, everyone in the entire world doesn't die. You're welcome.