Wow, that dog is hilarious. Here are some great quotes for those too lazy to watch the video.
The real show: Return of the Dorks. Thousands of 35-year-old men...waiting days, even months for just a taste of George Lucas' table scraps. Lonely men, who have never had sex, not even with a Catholic priest.
I've found an actual girl here...Not too shabby, the male-female ratio. You've got your veritable pick of the litter. You can choose from all kinds of guys who have no idea how to please you.
What, do you think governmental enforcement of a monopoly based on the premise of earliest discovery would be a better idea?
And what about copyright and patent law? That is exactly what the capitalism-based American government tries to do in such matters. While I agree that it is absurd to forbid cloning software, it is even more ridiculous to pass off a clone of expensive, research-intensive software as a virtue of capitalism. It is a question of development versus application. If these people developed novel techniques of generating 3d images from video, by all means they should be entitled to be the exclusive producers of this software, since the technique would have never existed had they not created it. Had they, however, simply combined a whole host of pre-existing technologies and simply made it usable, then competition is completely warranted.
I know many people on slashdot don't like to hear the truth, but some aspects of the legal system that seem so oppressive were created for a reason, a reason that is meaningful even now. If we lacked copyright law and somehow forced all software and ideas to be open source, it would be great in the short term: we'd have all kinds of nice software like this openly available. But in the long term, society would be screwed, since only a few hobbyists would bother to do research, while everybody else would be forced into a field of work where they could earn a living.
This private company just created a useful product (this is something that even you acknowledge) and justly wants to profit from the cost of risking development of such a tool. Then the first thing you ask is how somebody can clone it and steal the idea by rewriting the code as open source, since you cannot seriously expect them to just open source their code? This is capitalism at its worst.
If this practice becomes more commonplace, all that will happen is that the tiny companies get screwed, while the big monopolies will grow. The small ones struggling to get their foot in the door will simply be cloned and bankrupted while the rich ones with enough clout and monopoly to maintain their position will continue getting rich. Your thoughts about open-sourcing new, innovative software ultimately contribute to the problem of today's marketplace and really just keep the big guys in power.
I've tried it several times, but I found the biggest issue was that I would always slow down the game and sometimes get disconnected. That's also because I had a terrible ISP, but this is much rarer to find on broadband.
Also remember that if your plug gets disconnected from the NIC, it can be back in seconds. Think about how long it takes to dial back online--you're dropped from any game by then.
Will intel use the same chipset as they were on Centrino, or will this be different and incompatible with current drivers? Will some other stupid licensing/bandwidth issue leave linux users stranded with a radio transmitter that doesn't transmit?
I remember I had to wait nearly a year before my centrino laptop could get working wireless on linux. This time around, there's no chance I'll buy without the hardware being supported first.
Just because it's politically incorrect, why do we constantly have to beat around the bush or avoid making a direct connection from the data. If these people are rational economists, then they should realize that the statistics point to an innate gender difference, not just social factors, as some ultra-liberals would have you believe.
The article mentions that males stastically score in the extremes on standardized math tests-i.e. do the best and the worst. In order to succeed at academia, they have to be the best of the best, and the distribution of those few achievers would logically be towards the males.
Plus, how many women with a family could seriously commit 80 hours of work a week? You'd have to be crazy and obsessed about your job in order to sacrifice that much of a personal life. If that's what it often takes to achieve greatness, I'm surprised there are any professors, male or female, willing to take on the commitment.
In the end, these people in Alabama are really only shooting themselves in the foot.
They are so stupid in forcing this evolution disclaimer that any reasonable person would be scared to move to that state. In the end, anybody who wants a real education in science will have to move to a liberal state that can separate the creationist THEORY from the evolutionary FACT.
Let me clarify. I think that in the short term, internet2 will have to be self-regulated (i.e. the members of it should restrain themselves from piracy). In the the intermediate term, I2 administration should internally find the IP violators, similar to what MPAA is doing now, so that we won't need to have a company trying to scan people's hard drives for P2P apps. They could be like some advisory board that gives a stern warning, then temporarily boots the person from I2, and finally informs RIAA. This is perfectly feasible, and should be done quickly if we want to keep I2 around.
However, in the long term, I think this should be done through the government, yes. Similar to the cops arresting people who steal from the store, or stopping speeders, we need to make it into a minor crime. One that is prosecuted only rarely, but with a fine that is large enough to make the piracy economically undesirable.
While it seems ridiculous to include MPAA as a member of Internet2 under the pretense that it is helping research, we still cannot let Internet2 turn into a free-for-all of file sharing and illegal movie swapping. There is a reason that sharing copyrighted material is illegal. Intellectual property forms that basis of our society, and certainly it is critical for research institutions that "trade" in information. Being a member of Internet2 should be a privilege, and one with responsibilities taken seriously. Governments and universities are spending millions to get their systems on I2, and it is not the public's job to finance piracy. It would be terrible to see I2, which is quite powerful now, turn into another (regular) internet filled with all its trash, and with all its bandwidth consumed sharing movies.
That said, I cannot support commercialization of Internet2 or an invasion of it by MPAA just to allow them to sue I2 users. But in order to keep internet2 aligned with its true goals of promoting research, we will have to give some governing council the authority (even imperative) to fight this piracy and THEN take it to the respective IP owners like MPAA. I think it is silly that the burden should fall on MPAA to regulate such things, and it is because of this lunatic system that we are forced to deal with lawsuits from companies who snoop at file sharers. Pirating movies should have a penalty similar to stealing them physically: go to the city court and explain yourself in front of a judge your crime and regret, rather than dealing with expensive lawyers and publicized cases as is happening now.
he is obviously sharing with others
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Since he claims to get a lot of music off of Bittorrent, this guy is definitely giving it to others to get a decent download speed--and at 900000 songs, plenty of others have acquired other music thanks to his "hobby."
That's the nature of the protocol--you can't take without giving back. Even if somehow downloading but not sharing the music were legal, he'd still be breaking the law.
That is a terrible excuse for keeping America out of a treaty it negotiated. Besides, America is a developed country, while India and China are still growing substantially. Even though I dislike the pollution produced by China and India, you have to give a developing country a little more leeway, just as the US certainly polluted plenty during its industrial era.
However, we are largely based on a service economy now, and the idea that a developed and wealthy country can't reduce its own filth is absurd. We have the resources, if not willpower to accomplish this.
One could even say that this would save us money by sparing the next generation of asthma and other illnesses that are clearly induced from high pollutant levels. Too bad that it'll never happen under the current business-at-any-cost administration.
I believe their strategy works, although maybe just for a percentage of file sharers. I know someone who stopped using P2P entirely once the lawsuits came out. Sure, even if you're statistically not likely to get sued, why risk it?
If you're just downloading for fun, to hear a couple of songs or watch some movies, then why not just spend 20 bucks and get it legitimately?
For me, being on a university network is wonderful for downloading--but I don't try to abuse it. If I want something really bad, then buying it is usually what I'll do. For those passing interests (maybe I'll watch some silly comedy movie) I'll get it online and feel stupid for even bothering to download it.
In the end, how fun is it to watch the video/listen to the track--and compare that to how much trouble you might have if only 1% of people who saw it got a threatening letter...and if 1% of those people actually got sued, but had to waste weeks of their time and thousands of dollars, then is it really worth it?
I think it's about time some people get sued. They are the ones clearly breaking the law--nobody is trying to shut down bittorrent per se. If the music industry doesn't like people downloading their movies, they should forcefully "remind" us of it--and then act on their threat. That is the most powerful deterrent I can imagine.
As much as I hate the system that gives no money to musicians from CD sales, it works. Artists need exposure to get people to their concerts and to make them money on their song rights. The recording companies not only pay for the production costs of the album, but also for all their travel and basically any expenses on the way to fame or failure. Even worse than this, the companies are forced to pay (through middlemen) payola to the radio stations to get their songs on playlists. Sometimes this alone can total over half a million dollars.
In short, most musicians need the record companies to pay all their expenses to get to fame, much more than the companies need the profits off their CDs. I hate the system too, but claiming that we shouldn't bother with CDs since the artists get exposure when we download their music is bogus: the companies will make much less money, and won't be able to invest as much in the artists, leading to some good musicians being ignored for the hits with guaranteed profits.
As much as we now hate to pay for music, the system is win-win-win for artists-companies-listeners...just that the companies win the most.
if intel were another company...
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 4, Funny
they'd bill this as a "feature." Buy the processor and we'll bundle the radiator for free. Remember, supplies are limited, so hurry before winter approaches.
The title is a classic Simpsons reference. Rainer Wolfcastle stars in a movie as radioactive man where Milhouse has to save him. As acid comes directly at him, the imitation Schwartzenegger screams, "My eyes...the goggles do nothing!"
http://www.fact-index.com/m/mc/mcbain__the_simpson s_.html
In some places there is a tax on media like cdrs and everything that can be used to copy music illegally, just like we're supposed to use (identical) music cdrs if we're putting music on a cd. The problem is that
1. Nobody will abide by this system unless it's forced upon us and done universally. We'll need to be taxed even when we access the internet and P2P at libraries, universities and through dialup like Netzero.
2. In order for the money to be distributed fairly, the info will have to be logged at the P2P application level, of which songs traveling to whom how often. However, that would be (accurately) construed as invasive, and even if the major players like kazaa could be forced into adding this, none of the open source programs would even consider this invasive modification of their source.
3. People will always find a way around the system . Everybody is used to paying nothing, and they will jump at the smallest loophole, and rarely accept these tariffs willingly.
Personally, I think the best strategy is to continue suing those who share lots of files, and take down the main distributors/downloaders like was done in Iceland last week. If it doesn't scare away the casual users, at least this removes the crucial sources of media from the internet.
no ousourcing? yeah right
on
Inside Wal-Mart IT
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sure they won't outsource for the moment. But the second that it's easy and profitable enough for them to do it, don't think that Walmart won't just take all their IT jobs to somewhere cheaper.
They run a business for the shareholders, where profit, not jingoist sentiment, rules.
See, that's why c will never die--not from tradition, nostalgia or speed. From now on, to avoid liability, the linux startup scripts will have to be written in precompiled c (thanks to the wonderful #! symbol).
I welcome our new patent-holding overlords!
Virtually every year for the past couple of decades it has almost universally condemned Israel's refusal to follow international law in its occupation of Palestine, what has that accomplished?
While Israel has killed some innocent civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, their primary intention is to pursue and proactively eliminate terrorists, with civilians who die in the crossfire an unintended consequence. The problem is that that most of the world and UN, you included, are focusing in on Israel and condemning this country while blatantly ignoring the far more indiscriminate oppression of people in Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Timor. The problem of the UN being practically castrated in its power is only compounded by its obsession to punish Israel due to a large base of antisemitic nations.
Slashdot Mirror
What, do you think governmental enforcement of a monopoly based on the premise of earliest discovery would be a better idea?
And what about copyright and patent law? That is exactly what the capitalism-based American government tries to do in such matters. While I agree that it is absurd to forbid cloning software, it is even more ridiculous to pass off a clone of expensive, research-intensive software as a virtue of capitalism. It is a question of development versus application. If these people developed novel techniques of generating 3d images from video, by all means they should be entitled to be the exclusive producers of this software, since the technique would have never existed had they not created it. Had they, however, simply combined a whole host of pre-existing technologies and simply made it usable, then competition is completely warranted.
I know many people on slashdot don't like to hear the truth, but some aspects of the legal system that seem so oppressive were created for a reason, a reason that is meaningful even now. If we lacked copyright law and somehow forced all software and ideas to be open source, it would be great in the short term: we'd have all kinds of nice software like this openly available. But in the long term, society would be screwed, since only a few hobbyists would bother to do research, while everybody else would be forced into a field of work where they could earn a living.
This private company just created a useful product (this is something that even you acknowledge) and justly wants to profit from the cost of risking development of such a tool. Then the first thing you ask is how somebody can clone it and steal the idea by rewriting the code as open source, since you cannot seriously expect them to just open source their code? This is capitalism at its worst.
If this practice becomes more commonplace, all that will happen is that the tiny companies get screwed, while the big monopolies will grow. The small ones struggling to get their foot in the door will simply be cloned and bankrupted while the rich ones with enough clout and monopoly to maintain their position will continue getting rich. Your thoughts about open-sourcing new, innovative software ultimately contribute to the problem of today's marketplace and really just keep the big guys in power.
I've tried it several times, but I found the biggest issue was that I would always slow down the game and sometimes get disconnected. That's also because I had a terrible ISP, but this is much rarer to find on broadband.
Also remember that if your plug gets disconnected from the NIC, it can be back in seconds. Think about how long it takes to dial back online--you're dropped from any game by then.
Will intel use the same chipset as they were on Centrino, or will this be different and incompatible with current drivers? Will some other stupid licensing/bandwidth issue leave linux users stranded with a radio transmitter that doesn't transmit?
I remember I had to wait nearly a year before my centrino laptop could get working wireless on linux. This time around, there's no chance I'll buy without the hardware being supported first.
Just because it's politically incorrect, why do we constantly have to beat around the bush or avoid making a direct connection from the data. If these people are rational economists, then they should realize that the statistics point to an innate gender difference, not just social factors, as some ultra-liberals would have you believe.
a rd.html
The New York Times has a good report on this at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/national/18harv
The article mentions that males stastically score in the extremes on standardized math tests-i.e. do the best and the worst. In order to succeed at academia, they have to be the best of the best, and the distribution of those few achievers would logically be towards the males.
Plus, how many women with a family could seriously commit 80 hours of work a week? You'd have to be crazy and obsessed about your job in order to sacrifice that much of a personal life. If that's what it often takes to achieve greatness, I'm surprised there are any professors, male or female, willing to take on the commitment.
In the end, these people in Alabama are really only shooting themselves in the foot.
They are so stupid in forcing this evolution disclaimer that any reasonable person would be scared to move to that state. In the end, anybody who wants a real education in science will have to move to a liberal state that can separate the creationist THEORY from the evolutionary FACT.
I know suprnova won't be hosting it, but does anybody have a torrent?
Let me clarify. I think that in the short term, internet2 will have to be self-regulated (i.e. the members of it should restrain themselves from piracy). In the the intermediate term, I2 administration should internally find the IP violators, similar to what MPAA is doing now, so that we won't need to have a company trying to scan people's hard drives for P2P apps. They could be like some advisory board that gives a stern warning, then temporarily boots the person from I2, and finally informs RIAA. This is perfectly feasible, and should be done quickly if we want to keep I2 around.
However, in the long term, I think this should be done through the government, yes. Similar to the cops arresting people who steal from the store, or stopping speeders, we need to make it into a minor crime. One that is prosecuted only rarely, but with a fine that is large enough to make the piracy economically undesirable.
While it seems ridiculous to include MPAA as a member of Internet2 under the pretense that it is helping research, we still cannot let Internet2 turn into a free-for-all of file sharing and illegal movie swapping. There is a reason that sharing copyrighted material is illegal. Intellectual property forms that basis of our society, and certainly it is critical for research institutions that "trade" in information. Being a member of Internet2 should be a privilege, and one with responsibilities taken seriously. Governments and universities are spending millions to get their systems on I2, and it is not the public's job to finance piracy. It would be terrible to see I2, which is quite powerful now, turn into another (regular) internet filled with all its trash, and with all its bandwidth consumed sharing movies.
That said, I cannot support commercialization of Internet2 or an invasion of it by MPAA just to allow them to sue I2 users. But in order to keep internet2 aligned with its true goals of promoting research, we will have to give some governing council the authority (even imperative) to fight this piracy and THEN take it to the respective IP owners like MPAA. I think it is silly that the burden should fall on MPAA to regulate such things, and it is because of this lunatic system that we are forced to deal with lawsuits from companies who snoop at file sharers. Pirating movies should have a penalty similar to stealing them physically: go to the city court and explain yourself in front of a judge your crime and regret, rather than dealing with expensive lawyers and publicized cases as is happening now.
Since he claims to get a lot of music off of Bittorrent, this guy is definitely giving it to others to get a decent download speed--and at 900000 songs, plenty of others have acquired other music thanks to his "hobby."
That's the nature of the protocol--you can't take without giving back. Even if somehow downloading but not sharing the music were legal, he'd still be breaking the law.
That is a terrible excuse for keeping America out of a treaty it negotiated. Besides, America is a developed country, while India and China are still growing substantially. Even though I dislike the pollution produced by China and India, you have to give a developing country a little more leeway, just as the US certainly polluted plenty during its industrial era.
However, we are largely based on a service economy now, and the idea that a developed and wealthy country can't reduce its own filth is absurd. We have the resources, if not willpower to accomplish this.
One could even say that this would save us money by sparing the next generation of asthma and other illnesses that are clearly induced from high pollutant levels. Too bad that it'll never happen under the current business-at-any-cost administration.
I believe their strategy works, although maybe just for a percentage of file sharers. I know someone who stopped using P2P entirely once the lawsuits came out. Sure, even if you're statistically not likely to get sued, why risk it?
If you're just downloading for fun, to hear a couple of songs or watch some movies, then why not just spend 20 bucks and get it legitimately?
For me, being on a university network is wonderful for downloading--but I don't try to abuse it. If I want something really bad, then buying it is usually what I'll do. For those passing interests (maybe I'll watch some silly comedy movie) I'll get it online and feel stupid for even bothering to download it.
In the end, how fun is it to watch the video/listen to the track--and compare that to how much trouble you might have if only 1% of people who saw it got a threatening letter...and if 1% of those people actually got sued, but had to waste weeks of their time and thousands of dollars, then is it really worth it?
I think it's about time some people get sued. They are the ones clearly breaking the law--nobody is trying to shut down bittorrent per se. If the music industry doesn't like people downloading their movies, they should forcefully "remind" us of it--and then act on their threat. That is the most powerful deterrent I can imagine.
Factually, you are correct. Anybody who is interested in should also check out this inside account http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767 914708?v=glance
As much as I hate the system that gives no money to musicians from CD sales, it works. Artists need exposure to get people to their concerts and to make them money on their song rights. The recording companies not only pay for the production costs of the album, but also for all their travel and basically any expenses on the way to fame or failure. Even worse than this, the companies are forced to pay (through middlemen) payola to the radio stations to get their songs on playlists. Sometimes this alone can total over half a million dollars.
In short, most musicians need the record companies to pay all their expenses to get to fame, much more than the companies need the profits off their CDs. I hate the system too, but claiming that we shouldn't bother with CDs since the artists get exposure when we download their music is bogus: the companies will make much less money, and won't be able to invest as much in the artists, leading to some good musicians being ignored for the hits with guaranteed profits.
As much as we now hate to pay for music, the system is win-win-win for artists-companies-listeners...just that the companies win the most.
they'd bill this as a "feature." Buy the processor and we'll bundle the radiator for free. Remember, supplies are limited, so hurry before winter approaches.
The title is a classic Simpsons reference. Rainer Wolfcastle stars in a movie as radioactive man where Milhouse has to save him. As acid comes directly at him, the imitation Schwartzenegger screams, "My eyes...the goggles do nothing!" http://www.fact-index.com/m/mc/mcbain__the_simpson s_.html
In some places there is a tax on media like cdrs and everything that can be used to copy music illegally, just like we're supposed to use (identical) music cdrs if we're putting music on a cd. The problem is that
1. Nobody will abide by this system unless it's forced upon us and done universally. We'll need to be taxed even when we access the internet and P2P at libraries, universities and through dialup like Netzero.
2. In order for the money to be distributed fairly, the info will have to be logged at the P2P application level, of which songs traveling to whom how often. However, that would be (accurately) construed as invasive, and even if the major players like kazaa could be forced into adding this, none of the open source programs would even consider this invasive modification of their source.
3. People will always find a way around the system . Everybody is used to paying nothing, and they will jump at the smallest loophole, and rarely accept these tariffs willingly.
Personally, I think the best strategy is to continue suing those who share lots of files, and take down the main distributors/downloaders like was done in Iceland last week. If it doesn't scare away the casual users, at least this removes the crucial sources of media from the internet.
Sure they won't outsource for the moment. But the second that it's easy and profitable enough for them to do it, don't think that Walmart won't just take all their IT jobs to somewhere cheaper.
They run a business for the shareholders, where profit, not jingoist sentiment, rules.
See, that's why c will never die--not from tradition, nostalgia or speed. From now on, to avoid liability, the linux startup scripts will have to be written in precompiled c (thanks to the wonderful #! symbol). I welcome our new patent-holding overlords!
Virtually every year for the past couple of decades it has almost universally condemned Israel's refusal to follow international law in its occupation of Palestine, what has that accomplished?
While Israel has killed some innocent civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, their primary intention is to pursue and proactively eliminate terrorists, with civilians who die in the crossfire an unintended consequence. The problem is that that most of the world and UN, you included, are focusing in on Israel and condemning this country while blatantly ignoring the far more indiscriminate oppression of people in Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Timor. The problem of the UN being practically castrated in its power is only compounded by its obsession to punish Israel due to a large base of antisemitic nations.