People seem to think that you can ask real questions with ask jeeves. The results I get with questions on ask jeeves are actually worse than results I get through google for the same query (question).
They are patenting concepts. They are not even patenting theories or ways to implement concepts, they are patenting concepts. It's like patenting the very concept of a flying car itself, instead of patenting an implementation of the concept.
Pointless? Don't you mean unpractical? In fact it's not even unpractical. Most people are not going to do that since it's either too much work or it's too 'technical'.
I think this is partly due to a misunderstanding of capitalism among Americans. It looks like most Americans think capitalism == giving top priority to companies. Just like they think that communism == censorship and oppresion of people. They seem to equate the implementation of these ideologies in some countries to the actual theory itself. (and also some misunderstanding about these implementations, including thinking that things are more extreme than they actually are and some completely false beliefs)
It's like saying, if you see my dick hanging out, don't look at it, close your eyes. And if you inform me of the same, I'll punch you. Come on, dude, your dick is hanging out, PUT IT BACK IN!!
This is pretty much what RMS says. I think I've heard RMS say that once all software is free and the laws support it, we won't need licenses at all (Or something like that, I can't remember).
You can get GPLed programs for free, modify them and redistribute them. You can't do that with music. We don't like and don't support the current copyright system. We want and support a copyright system where we have freedom to do things with the copyrighted material. Therefore we are not sympathetic to the copyright holders of the illegaly downloaded music files. But when GPL is violated, we see that material that is following a copyright system we support is being violated and therefore we cry foul. You are making the assumption that we are universally against copyright infringement. We are not. We think the current laws are wrong and we want a better system. A system similar to the one involving GPL - Copyleft. We don't protest all illegal use of copyrighted material, since we believe that some of it should be made legal. We only protest what we believe are wrong uses of copyrighted material - like GPL violations, which is also illegal under current laws. So don't think that since we are against one type of illegal act, we are also against other types of illegal acts. You are making the assumption that since A is true and since B resembles A in some ways, B should also be true. You are wrong. I'll say it again: We do *not* support copyright law in its current form and we are *not* against copyright infringement in its current definition. We are not against copyright infringement -- we are against the violation of the copyright system we support. When we protest GPL violations, we are not protesting copyright infringement - we are protesting GPL violations, which, under the current system, is a subset of copyright infringement. So we are only against this subset of copyright infringement.
(When I say 'we', I mean people who share my beliefs about copyright. And sorry for the long post)
Attorney-General is used to refer to this kind of person in many (most) places. This is not an inaccurate translation just because it's different from the US meaning (among other countries).
I think parent's troll mod is way of slashdot telling us non-americans that we are inferior to americans and we should go away. At least there seems to be a general consensus about american superiority on slashdot and most american communication forums. Bye bye all.
Just use a different fucking email id. One from a free provider. And the last part of your last sentence doesn't make sense. And yeah, you'll be bugged by telemarketers, tough luck. You get a free ipod.
Whatever. You get a free iPod. And you can always use an email ID created just for this. (yeah, you'll get spam in your house and phone, tough luck). And you have spend a few bucks and see a couple of ads to get a free iPod which cost a lot more than what you spent. Big deal. I wish I had something like this in my country.
The whole slashdot summary is a big lie. Here is a quick summary of what I can gather from the article:
The chat rooms operated by the Tsinghua University have been closed down for non-students and, obviously, students require to indentify themselves.
NO BBS has been asked to get identification from its users. No BBS have been asked to censor themselves (at least not in a new development and not in the context of this article)
Only Tsinghua University has been asked to get identification from its students to access its chatrooms. No other university has been asked to do this (in the context of this article, of course).
New rules have been passed which, according to TFA, 'will hold chat room operators liable for any "objectionable content" on their sites.' So it must be speaking of keeping "objectional content" away from websites of chatrooms or some online forums. And this need not be political content but just things like porn. But keep in mind that TFA is full of opinion [like calling the move an effort "to limit the exchange of ideas on the Internet" and "the Communist Party's Propaganda Department". And it states opinions as facts including it in the same sentences as facts instead of stating it separately. Like "China's most popular online chat room, hosted by Beijing's Tsinghua University, has been closed to non-students to limit the exchange of ideas on the Internet" and "the Communist Party's Propaganda Department has increased its monitoring of cyberspace for subversive trends, the report said." (emphasis mine)] so it's hard to distinguish what is fact and what is opinion. TFA continues to say that " As a result, Weblog portals have discouraged their users from discussing political or sensitive topics." But it's just the editors' opinion and it doesn't have any recent developments to back it up. (Maybe just the old complaints)
TFA also says the Ministry of Education has ' issued a circular on strengthening "political thought" at universities'. Again, you can't tell what is fact and what is the editors' opinion.
Nowhere does the article mention anything about the "dismissal of the admin team of Nanjing Univesity". This might be another article not linked in summary or this might be just a lie by the poster.
The summary is just one big lie trying to make China look bad, written by someone who hates China. (And it groups a lot of stories together) And even TFA is not very unbiased. Proof that Slashdot has no journalistic integrity or ethics and occasionally spews out complete lies.
I think they are talking about dynamic content which used activex and other stuff on IE previously and didn't work on other browsers. And streaming media and other things which aren't completely standardised and which are not consistent on all browsers. Most of the static pages look fine on FireFox to me and they did say it was about 'services' so...
Apologies for the crappy URL; it seems I suck at them
No it's a bug in slashcode (I think) look at my other post.Now..
The IBM rebuttal first twists the words of the authors and takes it completely out of context, the authors were trying to tell things in layman's terms and everyone can see that. Then, in the security argument, it seems to ignore the fact that most security breaches occur due to software errors and the fact that once the "trusted" software itself is compromised, there's not much TC can do. And then it pushes of all the fears as mere speculation, whereas the fears are logical conclusions derived by careful analisys. Again, it takes things out of context and makes it appear as if the authors are trying to push speculation as fact. I've read the original documents, and this rebuttal doesn't hold up against them. If your fears were allayed to any extent by this rebuttal, then you must be very impressionable.
The 'trust' in 'anti-trust' actually means "a large business entity that tries to control a market and/or become a monopoly." Like a cartel. It has nothing to do with the trust in "Trust computing". Sorry for the language-nazism.
Slashdot Mirror
Are the good times back?
Let's ask jeeves!
People seem to think that you can ask real questions with ask jeeves. The results I get with questions on ask jeeves are actually worse than results I get through google for the same query (question).
Ask Jeeves ( ask.com, excite.com , iwon.com ) and InterActive Corp ( expedia, ticketmaster, match.com, citysearch).
That's not even a sentence.
RTFA.
They are patenting concepts. They are not even patenting theories or ways to implement concepts, they are patenting concepts. It's like patenting the very concept of a flying car itself, instead of patenting an implementation of the concept.
RTFA. And you Americans never miss an oppurtunity to insult China, do you?
None.
(I hope you understand the joke)
Pointless? Don't you mean unpractical? In fact it's not even unpractical. Most people are not going to do that since it's either too much work or it's too 'technical'.
Sorry if I'm missing the joke but solitaire is available on Linux.
Yup, everything is about Mac.
I think this is partly due to a misunderstanding of capitalism among Americans. It looks like most Americans think capitalism == giving top priority to companies. Just like they think that communism == censorship and oppresion of people. They seem to equate the implementation of these ideologies in some countries to the actual theory itself. (and also some misunderstanding about these implementations, including thinking that things are more extreme than they actually are and some completely false beliefs)
If you see my tax file out there, leave it alone!
It's like saying, if you see my dick hanging out, don't look at it, close your eyes. And if you inform me of the same, I'll punch you. Come on, dude, your dick is hanging out, PUT IT BACK IN!!
This is pretty much what RMS says. I think I've heard RMS say that once all software is free and the laws support it, we won't need licenses at all (Or something like that, I can't remember).
You can get GPLed programs for free, modify them and redistribute them. You can't do that with music. We don't like and don't support the current copyright system. We want and support a copyright system where we have freedom to do things with the copyrighted material. Therefore we are not sympathetic to the copyright holders of the illegaly downloaded music files. But when GPL is violated, we see that material that is following a copyright system we support is being violated and therefore we cry foul. You are making the assumption that we are universally against copyright infringement. We are not. We think the current laws are wrong and we want a better system. A system similar to the one involving GPL - Copyleft. We don't protest all illegal use of copyrighted material, since we believe that some of it should be made legal. We only protest what we believe are wrong uses of copyrighted material - like GPL violations, which is also illegal under current laws. So don't think that since we are against one type of illegal act, we are also against other types of illegal acts. You are making the assumption that since A is true and since B resembles A in some ways, B should also be true. You are wrong. I'll say it again: We do *not* support copyright law in its current form and we are *not* against copyright infringement in its current definition. We are not against copyright infringement -- we are against the violation of the copyright system we support. When we protest GPL violations, we are not protesting copyright infringement - we are protesting GPL violations, which, under the current system, is a subset of copyright infringement. So we are only against this subset of copyright infringement.
(When I say 'we', I mean people who share my beliefs about copyright. And sorry for the long post)
Because they want to project a good image of their committee, while screwing people from the behind.
Attorney-General is used to refer to this kind of person in many (most) places. This is not an inaccurate translation just because it's different from the US meaning (among other countries).
People see only what they want to see. They ignore the rest.
I think parent's troll mod is way of slashdot telling us non-americans that we are inferior to americans and we should go away. At least there seems to be a general consensus about american superiority on slashdot and most american communication forums. Bye bye all.
Yeah, you obviously didn't read TFA. And you haven't provided even one source to back up your claims.
Just use a different fucking email id. One from a free provider. And the last part of your last sentence doesn't make sense. And yeah, you'll be bugged by telemarketers, tough luck. You get a free ipod.
Whatever. You get a free iPod. And you can always use an email ID created just for this. (yeah, you'll get spam in your house and phone, tough luck). And you have spend a few bucks and see a couple of ads to get a free iPod which cost a lot more than what you spent. Big deal. I wish I had something like this in my country.
- The chat rooms operated by the Tsinghua University have been closed down for non-students and, obviously, students require to indentify themselves.
- NO BBS has been asked to get identification from its users. No BBS have been asked to censor themselves (at least not in a new development and not in the context of this article)
- Only Tsinghua University has been asked to get identification from its students to access its chatrooms. No other university has been asked to do this (in the context of this article, of course).
- New rules have been passed which, according to TFA, 'will hold chat room operators liable for any "objectionable content" on their sites.' So it must be speaking of keeping "objectional content" away from websites of chatrooms or some online forums. And this need not be political content but just things like porn. But keep in mind that TFA is full of opinion [like calling the move an effort "to limit the exchange of ideas on the Internet" and "the Communist Party's Propaganda Department". And it states opinions as facts including it in the same sentences as facts instead of stating it separately. Like "China's most popular online chat room, hosted by Beijing's Tsinghua University, has been closed to non-students to limit the exchange of ideas on the Internet" and "the Communist Party's Propaganda Department has increased its monitoring of cyberspace for subversive trends, the report said." (emphasis mine)] so it's hard to distinguish what is fact and what is opinion. TFA continues to say that " As a result, Weblog portals have discouraged their users from discussing political or sensitive topics." But it's just the editors' opinion and it doesn't have any recent developments to back it up. (Maybe just the old complaints)
- TFA also says the Ministry of Education has ' issued a circular on strengthening "political thought" at universities'. Again, you can't tell what is fact and what is the editors' opinion.
- Nowhere does the article mention anything about the "dismissal of the admin team of Nanjing Univesity". This might be another article not linked in summary or this might be just a lie by the poster.
The summary is just one big lie trying to make China look bad, written by someone who hates China. (And it groups a lot of stories together) And even TFA is not very unbiased. Proof that Slashdot has no journalistic integrity or ethics and occasionally spews out complete lies.I think they are talking about dynamic content which used activex and other stuff on IE previously and didn't work on other browsers. And streaming media and other things which aren't completely standardised and which are not consistent on all browsers. Most of the static pages look fine on FireFox to me and they did say it was about 'services' so...
Apologies for the crappy URL; it seems I suck at them
No it's a bug in slashcode (I think) look at my other post.Now..
The IBM rebuttal first twists the words of the authors and takes it completely out of context, the authors were trying to tell things in layman's terms and everyone can see that. Then, in the security argument, it seems to ignore the fact that most security breaches occur due to software errors and the fact that once the "trusted" software itself is compromised, there's not much TC can do. And then it pushes of all the fears as mere speculation, whereas the fears are logical conclusions derived by careful analisys. Again, it takes things out of context and makes it appear as if the authors are trying to push speculation as fact. I've read the original documents, and this rebuttal doesn't hold up against them. If your fears were allayed to any extent by this rebuttal, then you must be very impressionable.
The 'trust' in 'anti-trust' actually means "a large business entity that tries to control a market and/or become a monopoly." Like a cartel. It has nothing to do with the trust in "Trust computing". Sorry for the language-nazism.