He's guilty of using a video camera in the wrong room.
You make it sound so innocent. He was just playing with his new toy, tucked out of sight in his clothing, and forgot he was in a movie theatre. Then, oops, before you know it he'd videoed a movie. Could happen to anyone.
The only people I know who watch rips is because they can't physically go, and the rip is better than nothing)
You mean people who can't physically go, and can't possibly contain themselves until the official DVD is out. Though just how it's possible to have such an urgent need to see a movie, and simultaneously be so unfortunate to have no way of seeing it, is a mystery. Must be very unlucky people.
It's a kdawson effort. The summary knocks Microsoft product in the most unfair and clueless way possible. (Bench testing a pre-beta against a released version?? Well, duh!).
My guess is no brain cells were employed between editorial review and appearance on front page, in a reaction that would be flattery to call knee-jerk.
Just how many reasons for this card have we gone through now? I've lost count.
It was to win the war against terrorism. No, wait, it was to prevent illegal immigrants flooding the country. Errrm, noo, it'll stop Social Security spongers. Your key to a seamlessly integrated health care system? No? A fun techno gadget that everyone will want? Oh, come on, still not going for it?! Ok, how about a way for 18 year olds to buy alcohol?
I mean, how clear an indication do we need that this is a project that's not so much gone of the rails, but never had rails in the first place and never knew where the hell it was supposed to be going and what it was supposed to do once it got there? Either those driving it forward are fumbling cluelessly in the dark towards the inevitable large pay-off bonuses, or someone somewhere, has a very definite plan for this ridiculous waste of money that they really don't want to tell us about.
You could say that of any kind of security. If it's not ultra-simple lazy users will try to simplify it for their own benefit, unless explicitly told not to, with threats. Good security is rarely ultra-simple.
It's the Universal Internet Equation that every online forum has to cope with;
Anonymity + Audience + No Consequences = Total A***hole
Remove any element of the above and you'll find people are much more agreeable. It also explains the other online rule of DNFTT, as that removes the second element.
Soon, 350,000 Dutch people will use and enjoy the fruits of free software.
Any value in the design is put there by the designer. No software, free or otherwise, will design a coin for you. Well, that is until Microsoft produces a Word template for it. And then they'll all be crap and overused.
This is a step in the right direction. But, please, let's not stop there. With a little more effort we can remove the scourge of "Weird" Al's lame parody songs from our airwaves. Even if it means bleeping out a word at a time, it's still worth doing.
Can I do some minimal research on an inconsequential subject, whap on a great big slab of unfounded speculation, and then get my own article on slashdot too?
Is this measure not more about google being able to remove applications that weren't welcome in the first place? i.e. malware that the user isn't even aware is installed.
I've just tried the winning entrant; http://www.elbot.com/, and can only say that the judges who were fooled by it must have been drunk. It had all the usual giveaways; inability to maintain the subject of a conversation longer than one question and answer, infuriating avoidance of a straight answer to a straightforward question, random changes of subject, generic responses carefully worded to apply to just about any subject in any way, without actually meaning anything.
I'd say the conversations the judges had must have been incredibly shallow for these AIs to sound anything like human. And if they did think they were human; they'd must have thought they were the most annoying and socially-backward humans on the face of the planet.
Are you saying TPB divert money to themselves that would have otherwise gone to artists? How is that happening exactly?
Happy to explain. By facilitating the distribution of artists' work at no cost to the end consumer they are undermining the market in which the artists' work is sold to the end consumer. End consumer behaviour is almost always observed to favour the least cost alternative, particularly when the product on sale is virtually identical. Consequently the artist get less money for their work due to an unlicensed distribution channel that they cannot possibly compete with. They are bearing all the cost of production, while the unlicensed distribution channel has none. In the meanwhile, the unlicensed distribution channel is gaining profit through advertising to an audience that has been drawn in on the back of the artists work. The artist sees nothing of this money either.
Do you not realise that this means that fans of food-based "parody" songs can get their hands on Weird Al's output while it's still lame, rather than waiting until it's lame and outdated? This could revolutionise Western culture as we know it.
Only one question remains; how the hell is this news?
So there is absolutely no moral case for saying that the money their making properly belongs to the musicians who create the content?
These guys are leeches. Artificial middlemen not just creaming off the profit from others' labour, but removing every last penny and walking off with it.
And no, saying that the Music Industry is no better is no defence. Two wrongs do not make a right, and at least the music industry pays royalties. What do these guys contribute other than crap about being regular guys indulging a hobby?
It also means they can change the product in any way they wish, including withdrawing it completely, without explanation.
No other company could get away with this, but because the products are, in effect, free I guess they can do what they want. But I bet the lawsuits would fly if they ever dared pull something like GMail.
You're missing out the fact that the high resolution images on Google are not taken by satellite. They're aerial survey shots; i.e. taken from a plane.
The satellite images used on Google don't get near resolving the kind of detail you'd need for this kind of stunt. They're used where aerial survey shots aren't available.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps we should send parents who download rips to keep their kids amused to jail too?
No. But perhaps we should send parents who are slaves to their children's whims to parenting classes.
He's guilty of using a video camera in the wrong room.
You make it sound so innocent. He was just playing with his new toy, tucked out of sight in his clothing, and forgot he was in a movie theatre. Then, oops, before you know it he'd videoed a movie. Could happen to anyone.
The only people I know who watch rips is because they can't physically go, and the rip is better than nothing)
You mean people who can't physically go, and can't possibly contain themselves until the official DVD is out. Though just how it's possible to have such an urgent need to see a movie, and simultaneously be so unfortunate to have no way of seeing it, is a mystery. Must be very unlucky people.
It's a kdawson effort. The summary knocks Microsoft product in the most unfair and clueless way possible. (Bench testing a pre-beta against a released version?? Well, duh!).
My guess is no brain cells were employed between editorial review and appearance on front page, in a reaction that would be flattery to call knee-jerk.
Just how many reasons for this card have we gone through now? I've lost count.
It was to win the war against terrorism. No, wait, it was to prevent illegal immigrants flooding the country. Errrm, noo, it'll stop Social Security spongers. Your key to a seamlessly integrated health care system? No? A fun techno gadget that everyone will want? Oh, come on, still not going for it?! Ok, how about a way for 18 year olds to buy alcohol?
I mean, how clear an indication do we need that this is a project that's not so much gone of the rails, but never had rails in the first place and never knew where the hell it was supposed to be going and what it was supposed to do once it got there? Either those driving it forward are fumbling cluelessly in the dark towards the inevitable large pay-off bonuses, or someone somewhere, has a very definite plan for this ridiculous waste of money that they really don't want to tell us about.
this is so incredibly inane it doesn't even deserve to be on Idle.
Are you new around here? It's exactly inane enough to be on idle.
All this proves is that Paddy Power know how to use science to pull a publicity stunt.
You could say that of any kind of security. If it's not ultra-simple lazy users will try to simplify it for their own benefit, unless explicitly told not to, with threats. Good security is rarely ultra-simple.
I can hear you saying "SeneVar", but how are you spelling that?
"Cenevarr", "Senivar"?
The trouble with meaningless words is there's no definitive spelling, so its easily forgotten.
It's the Universal Internet Equation that every online forum has to cope with;
Anonymity + Audience + No Consequences = Total A***hole
Remove any element of the above and you'll find people are much more agreeable. It also explains the other online rule of DNFTT, as that removes the second element.
Soon, 350,000 Dutch people will use and enjoy the fruits of free software.
Any value in the design is put there by the designer. No software, free or otherwise, will design a coin for you. Well, that is until Microsoft produces a Word template for it. And then they'll all be crap and overused.
they assured me the whole procedure was approved by very knowledgeable people, and very secure.
And how was this not secure?
Unfriendly, yes. Annoying, definitely. But unsecure?
This is a step in the right direction. But, please, let's not stop there. With a little more effort we can remove the scourge of "Weird" Al's lame parody songs from our airwaves. Even if it means bleeping out a word at a time, it's still worth doing.
Can I do some minimal research on an inconsequential subject, whap on a great big slab of unfounded speculation, and then get my own article on slashdot too?
Does anyone else find this scarily similar to how it worked in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?
I don't know, maybe just everyone who has RTFA which specifically points out the similarity?
Is this measure not more about google being able to remove applications that weren't welcome in the first place? i.e. malware that the user isn't even aware is installed.
Don't mess with this guy. He has an army of cybermen ready to invade the planet!
Well, either that, or a very silly job title.
I've just tried the winning entrant; http://www.elbot.com/, and can only say that the judges who were fooled by it must have been drunk. It had all the usual giveaways; inability to maintain the subject of a conversation longer than one question and answer, infuriating avoidance of a straight answer to a straightforward question, random changes of subject, generic responses carefully worded to apply to just about any subject in any way, without actually meaning anything.
I'd say the conversations the judges had must have been incredibly shallow for these AIs to sound anything like human. And if they did think they were human; they'd must have thought they were the most annoying and socially-backward humans on the face of the planet.
Spammers are liars. But it's an oxymoron to say it.
Are you saying TPB divert money to themselves that would have otherwise gone to artists? How is that happening exactly?
Happy to explain. By facilitating the distribution of artists' work at no cost to the end consumer they are undermining the market in which the artists' work is sold to the end consumer. End consumer behaviour is almost always observed to favour the least cost alternative, particularly when the product on sale is virtually identical. Consequently the artist get less money for their work due to an unlicensed distribution channel that they cannot possibly compete with. They are bearing all the cost of production, while the unlicensed distribution channel has none. In the meanwhile, the unlicensed distribution channel is gaining profit through advertising to an audience that has been drawn in on the back of the artists work. The artist sees nothing of this money either.
How is this fair?
You realize the irony of this statement, right?
You realise that the very next sentence in my post addressed that, right? You know, the one you carefully extracted from your quote?
Copies of The Content has zero marginal cost.
Creating the original content in the first place is part of the marginal cost. It doesn't create itself.
I detect a touch of cynicism in your post.
Do you not realise that this means that fans of food-based "parody" songs can get their hands on Weird Al's output while it's still lame, rather than waiting until it's lame and outdated? This could revolutionise Western culture as we know it.
Only one question remains; how the hell is this news?
more power to them for making money
So there is absolutely no moral case for saying that the money their making properly belongs to the musicians who create the content?
These guys are leeches. Artificial middlemen not just creaming off the profit from others' labour, but removing every last penny and walking off with it.
And no, saying that the Music Industry is no better is no defence. Two wrongs do not make a right, and at least the music industry pays royalties. What do these guys contribute other than crap about being regular guys indulging a hobby?
It also means they can change the product in any way they wish, including withdrawing it completely, without explanation.
No other company could get away with this, but because the products are, in effect, free I guess they can do what they want. But I bet the lawsuits would fly if they ever dared pull something like GMail.
But remember folks, you get what you pay for.
Except that the high resolution photographs on google are not taken by satellite. They're aerial photographs.
So the entire exercise was based on a fiction, and the organisers probably knew this.
You're missing out the fact that the high resolution images on Google are not taken by satellite. They're aerial survey shots; i.e. taken from a plane.
The satellite images used on Google don't get near resolving the kind of detail you'd need for this kind of stunt. They're used where aerial survey shots aren't available.