It's is a shame that Digsby went down this route and will result in me installing one of the suggestions above.
Digsby had a lot of potential with their integration with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites. I have noticed that many of my friends are no longer using IM clients as much as they used to because they simply post everything to Twitter or Facebook.
Digsby was a single application that allowed me to keep tabs on all of these streams, but now I will have to find alternative (probably open source) solutions.
And how does that make it any better then of it was on the job application. Would it be reasonable for the city to ask for a copy of the keys to your house so they can search it? That would be similar to the concept of allowing them access to your "private" web accounts. What I do in public is perfectly fine for them to examine, but what I do in private is not.
They have not had an official vote on the matter yet.
From the Ars Technica article:
The Wall Street Journal reports tonight that commissioners Copps, Adelstein, and Martin have decided against the cable giant, paving the way for an official vote when the order is publicly voted on next Friday.
If I was an ISP who wanted to slow the use of P2P on my network, I only have a few options.
Comcast tried the first option, which is to drop the connections. The outrage on tech sites was massive, and eventually led to them being investigated by the FCC.
Barring that option, why not put the burden on the government to handle the filtering. Heck, that is even better because now you don't have to pay for it anymore, your customers pay for it through their taxes.
When the RIAA discovered that they had some money left over after paying the lawyers, they needed some time. They have their best accountants working on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting.
Once they are done with the proper accounting procedures, they will make sure to give the token penny or two to the "poor, starving artists".
The problem with that philosophy is that the candidate does not know that you don't agree with on most issues and only voted for them because they were "viable". In their perspective you fully support the platform they ran on. This can be seen from the 2004 election where the many voters felt they were voting for "the lesser of 2 evils", but Bush took winning the popular vote as a "mandate" for his policies.
In order for anything to actually change, you sometimes have to vote for candidate "A" who has no chance of winning the current election. When this occurs then the other candidates/parties will be forced to consider the positions of "A" and likely integrate some of "A"s positions into their platforms.
That is a great idea. Read the contents of the bill and determine what was actually passed. Maybe it is not as inflammatory as it sounds. Wait a minute, according to this:
In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.
How are we really supposed to know if they are still only responsible if they see the content. What if that changed in the interim. A contentious bill like this should always have a full review of the final wording before a vote. Not to mention that a bill should never be passed where the version being voted on isn't available to the public with enough time to comment on.
This is already how the patent process is supposed to work, in the USA at least. We have a first to invent patent process here, which is supposed to mean that you can not get a patent on something that another person has already invented and been using.
In most other countries however, they have switched to the first to file method, and there is pressure on the USA to switch as well.
The problem is that it is very difficult to determine who invented/implemented/developed something first. This is one of the reasons that it can take years for a patent to move from the pending status to granted. I personally believe that this delay is worth it for the benefit of a proper investigation, however I could see how someone would disagree.
"Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."
He never said that people were stealing their work. What he said, quite plainly seen in the quote, is that people are using their contributions and not giving anything back to them when they license the changes under the GPL. This is a situation where Theo and friends are making their code available to everyone, and somebody uses their contributions and adds to it, but in doing so makes sure that Theo is not allowed to use their new extensions to the code.
I understand how this might upset him, however I don't see how this is any different then a company taking a portion of BSD licensed code and using it in their product without adding any contributions back to any community besides their own shareholders.
Your right, I don't see anything that indicates they can't change their mind...oh, except for this:
they are expected to stick with their major through four years unless they have a compelling reason to change.
Or how about this:
Two years ago, Akelia applied to the magnet program's law and public safety academy because she wanted to be a lawyer. But after finding many of the legal cases boring and hard to relate to, she was unable to take classes in other fields because she was locked into her specialization.
Blizzard Announcement: "We will be having an announcement soon announcing when we will have an announcement about when we will announce a new product."
I love this quote right at the top of the entry about Sony:
they have in fact made their latest releases unplayable on some DVD players, including my Sony DVP-CX995V DVD player. I don't think we even need another sign of the incompetence of Sony then the fact that they break their own hardware with their ill-conceived protection mechanisms. Obviously Sony divisions no longer talk to one another about what they are doing. This is a shame considering that communication between units was how Sony invented one of their most profitable items ever...the Walkman.
left hand: make decent hardware...Profit!
right hand: break hardware made by left hand...don't tell left hand about it....Profit?
This could be a major problem in the future more so then it is right now. I suspect that hardware vendors will quit supporting XP with their new hardware and drivers as Vista becomes the dominant operating system.
If that happens, then it could get to the point where a person who simply has an Upgrade version of Vista would not be able to install their OS because they wouldn't be able to get a working version of XP in the system to "Upgrade" from.
With all that said, do you have to ask for permission? Yes. I'm afraid the burden is on you the would be leecher to ask for permission unless you are put on notice otherwise
I for one agree that you need to ask permission to use the network. The interesting thing is that, by extension, you are asking permission to use the network when your WiFi adapter asks the WAP if it can connect to it. Once the WAP tells the adapter that it can connect then you have been given the permission you were asking for. It is quite simple to set up password protection on a WAP, so that when your adapter asks for permission to use the network, the WAP tells it that it doesn't have permission without the password.
My question for you would be why should I need to ask for permission by using writing, voice, visible wavelengths, etc. What is the difference between nodding your head at someone and thereby granting permission over the visible wavelengths, and sending a series of 1s and 0s over a different part of the spectrum to grant permission?
"From time to time, Amazon will automatically deliver promotional video content (e.g., movie trailers, celebrity interviews, reviews, etc.) to your Authorized Device. Amazon may automatically delete such promotional video content from your Authorized Device without notice to you."
"If Amazon changes any part of the Service or modifies license terms applicable to Rental Digital Content or Purchased Digital Content, which it may do in its sole discretion, you acknowledge that you may not be able to access, view, or use Digital Content in the same manner as prior to such changes, and you agree that Amazon shall have no liability to you in such case."
The Software automatically checks for upgrades, but the Software will not automatically upgrade without your consent, except as provided herein. If you do not consent to an upgrade that we make subject to your consent, the Digital Content may no longer be viewed on your Authorized Device."
I disagree with that. In fact the large companies stand to lose a lot if obvious patents are struck down.
It is very similar to the arms race, with the introduction of nukes all of the power was put in the hands of very few countries. No smaller country could compete because they couldn't make their own nukes. With patents, small companies can't compete because they can't reach massive cross licensing, aka cold war, style agreements with the large companies because they don't have thousands of patents.
That is somewhat true but it is a strawman argument. You could also easily say the safest gun is the one you don't make, but would that stop the bad guys from carrying guns. Instead of telling people they can't have guns because, "the safest gun is one you don't make" we do our best to include safety features in them.
I realize that nuclear weapons are a whole different class of weapons then any we have ever had before, but that doesn't change the fact that our current arsenal of weapons is actually deteriorating rapidly and possible prone to an attack that could detonate them. If we can replace those nukes with safer ones that don't have these problems then that is better what we currently have and while it may not be quite a step in the right direction, it isn't a step in the wrong direction either.
People need to read the article more closely. They aren't working on these new weapons to increase the US stockpile of nukes, but just to maintain it. They are trying to create safer and more stable nukes that can be kept for long periods of time without the problems we have with current nukes. Then they plan to replace, not add to, the current nuclear stockpile with these new weapons.
I am not making a judgement here on whether nukes are good or bad at all, but if the only choice is between unsafe and unstable nuclear weapons and more stable ones I will take the stable ones anyday.
There is definitely a question of whether you trust Diebold here or not, but there is also a question of whether you trust BlackBoxVoting.
Anyone who looks into the internal workings of the system would have the ability to change how the system works, not just Diebold. If BlackBoxVoting has a political agenda also then why should anyone trust them more then they trust Diebold.
I don't see any real way to trust any "single" group with the security of the system. Because of this the only way to truly ensure that the system is fair and unbiased would be to either have a voter verifiable paper trail, or a completely open system that can be tested by anyone who wants to ensure the neutral nature of the software/hardware. Preferably both an open system and a voter verifiable paper trail would be used for maximum safety.
Most strategy games release many expansions for the game that continue to keep the game profitable months and years after release. I was wondering if you are worried that adding the ability for users to create their own mods will decrease expansions sales? Do you think that the sales, and buzz, of the full game will make up for the difference in likely decreased expansion pack sales?
I haven't been able to access the link to this article. Has it already been/.ed? If so, does anyone have another link so that I can read the article before I comment on it.
I am not completely sure about this, but I believe that private property owners do _not_ have a right to monitor you in the restroom. Although you are on their property, they are still invading your privacy when they monitor the restroom as a restroom has an inherit expectation of privacy.
I for one wouldn't count out the possibility of this channel actually becoming popular. I mean, it seems to be feeding off the viral video phenomenon that the Internet has created. If it can really manage to get material that is as addictive as all these viral videos then it has a chance.
The only real concern I have is that it is selling itself as a news channel. There really isn't much viral news out there on the internet. But it will be nice to see them give it a try anyways. Could be the first _new_ approach to television in years.
I definitly agree that it is sad to see people reject anything and everything that challenges their view of how the world is, especially when the evidence supports the challenge. I was, however, merely pointing out that in this situation the people were just doing what they were there to do, mainly give their opinion of the film. Had they lied about how they felt it wouldn't have helped the theater in any way, and might have hurt them. Better for the theater to know that a portion of their audience would be offended by the movie, then to be blissfully ignorant and assume that everyone would want to se e the film.
You said it yourself. These were "focus groups". That means that the theater brought these people in _to_ comment on the movie. These weren't people actively seeking to protest the movie, but just doing their job. If the theater ended up with an unbalanced focus group filled with fundamentalists then that is their own fault. So it seems that it really might be as simple as them trying to show a profitable movie after all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's is a shame that Digsby went down this route and will result in me installing one of the suggestions above.
Digsby had a lot of potential with their integration with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites. I have noticed that many of my friends are no longer using IM clients as much as they used to because they simply post everything to Twitter or Facebook.
Digsby was a single application that allowed me to keep tabs on all of these streams, but now I will have to find alternative (probably open source) solutions.
And how does that make it any better then of it was on the job application. Would it be reasonable for the city to ask for a copy of the keys to your house so they can search it? That would be similar to the concept of allowing them access to your "private" web accounts. What I do in public is perfectly fine for them to examine, but what I do in private is not.
If I was an ISP who wanted to slow the use of P2P on my network, I only have a few options.
Comcast tried the first option, which is to drop the connections. The outrage on tech sites was massive, and eventually led to them being investigated by the FCC.
Barring that option, why not put the burden on the government to handle the filtering. Heck, that is even better because now you don't have to pay for it anymore, your customers pay for it through their taxes.
When the RIAA discovered that they had some money left over after paying the lawyers, they needed some time. They have their best accountants working on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting.
Once they are done with the proper accounting procedures, they will make sure to give the token penny or two to the "poor, starving artists".
The problem with that philosophy is that the candidate does not know that you don't agree with on most issues and only voted for them because they were "viable". In their perspective you fully support the platform they ran on. This can be seen from the 2004 election where the many voters felt they were voting for "the lesser of 2 evils", but Bush took winning the popular vote as a "mandate" for his policies.
In order for anything to actually change, you sometimes have to vote for candidate "A" who has no chance of winning the current election. When this occurs then the other candidates/parties will be forced to consider the positions of "A" and likely integrate some of "A"s positions into their platforms.
How are we really supposed to know if they are still only responsible if they see the content. What if that changed in the interim. A contentious bill like this should always have a full review of the final wording before a vote. Not to mention that a bill should never be passed where the version being voted on isn't available to the public with enough time to comment on.
This is already how the patent process is supposed to work, in the USA at least. We have a first to invent patent process here, which is supposed to mean that you can not get a patent on something that another person has already invented and been using.
In most other countries however, they have switched to the first to file method, and there is pressure on the USA to switch as well.
The problem is that it is very difficult to determine who invented/implemented/developed something first. This is one of the reasons that it can take years for a patent to move from the pending status to granted. I personally believe that this delay is worth it for the benefit of a proper investigation, however I could see how someone would disagree.
He never said that people were stealing their work. What he said, quite plainly seen in the quote, is that people are using their contributions and not giving anything back to them when they license the changes under the GPL. This is a situation where Theo and friends are making their code available to everyone, and somebody uses their contributions and adds to it, but in doing so makes sure that Theo is not allowed to use their new extensions to the code.
I understand how this might upset him, however I don't see how this is any different then a company taking a portion of BSD licensed code and using it in their product without adding any contributions back to any community besides their own shareholders.Or how about this: Two years ago, Akelia applied to the magnet program's law and public safety academy because she wanted to be a lawyer. But after finding many of the legal cases boring and hard to relate to, she was unable to take classes in other fields because she was locked into her specialization.
Blizzard Announcement: "We will be having an announcement soon announcing when we will have an announcement about when we will announce a new product."
left hand: make decent hardware...Profit!
right hand: break hardware made by left hand...don't tell left hand about it....Profit?
This could be a major problem in the future more so then it is right now. I suspect that hardware vendors will quit supporting XP with their new hardware and drivers as Vista becomes the dominant operating system.
If that happens, then it could get to the point where a person who simply has an Upgrade version of Vista would not be able to install their OS because they wouldn't be able to get a working version of XP in the system to "Upgrade" from.
I for one agree that you need to ask permission to use the network. The interesting thing is that, by extension, you are asking permission to use the network when your WiFi adapter asks the WAP if it can connect to it. Once the WAP tells the adapter that it can connect then you have been given the permission you were asking for. It is quite simple to set up password protection on a WAP, so that when your adapter asks for permission to use the network, the WAP tells it that it doesn't have permission without the password.
My question for you would be why should I need to ask for permission by using writing, voice, visible wavelengths, etc. What is the difference between nodding your head at someone and thereby granting permission over the visible wavelengths, and sending a series of 1s and 0s over a different part of the spectrum to grant permission?
"From time to time, Amazon will automatically deliver promotional video content (e.g., movie trailers, celebrity interviews, reviews, etc.) to your Authorized Device. Amazon may automatically delete such promotional video content from your Authorized Device without notice to you."
"If Amazon changes any part of the Service or modifies license terms applicable to Rental Digital Content or Purchased Digital Content, which it may do in its sole discretion, you acknowledge that you may not be able to access, view, or use Digital Content in the same manner as prior to such changes, and you agree that Amazon shall have no liability to you in such case."
The Software automatically checks for upgrades, but the Software will not automatically upgrade without your consent, except as provided herein. If you do not consent to an upgrade that we make subject to your consent, the Digital Content may no longer be viewed on your Authorized Device."
I disagree with that. In fact the large companies stand to lose a lot if obvious patents are struck down.
It is very similar to the arms race, with the introduction of nukes all of the power was put in the hands of very few countries. No smaller country could compete because they couldn't make their own nukes. With patents, small companies can't compete because they can't reach massive cross licensing, aka cold war, style agreements with the large companies because they don't have thousands of patents.
That is somewhat true but it is a strawman argument. You could also easily say the safest gun is the one you don't make, but would that stop the bad guys from carrying guns. Instead of telling people they can't have guns because, "the safest gun is one you don't make" we do our best to include safety features in them.
I realize that nuclear weapons are a whole different class of weapons then any we have ever had before, but that doesn't change the fact that our current arsenal of weapons is actually deteriorating rapidly and possible prone to an attack that could detonate them. If we can replace those nukes with safer ones that don't have these problems then that is better what we currently have and while it may not be quite a step in the right direction, it isn't a step in the wrong direction either.
People need to read the article more closely. They aren't working on these new weapons to increase the US stockpile of nukes, but just to maintain it. They are trying to create safer and more stable nukes that can be kept for long periods of time without the problems we have with current nukes. Then they plan to replace, not add to, the current nuclear stockpile with these new weapons. I am not making a judgement here on whether nukes are good or bad at all, but if the only choice is between unsafe and unstable nuclear weapons and more stable ones I will take the stable ones anyday.
There is definitely a question of whether you trust Diebold here or not, but there is also a question of whether you trust BlackBoxVoting.
Anyone who looks into the internal workings of the system would have the ability to change how the system works, not just Diebold. If BlackBoxVoting has a political agenda also then why should anyone trust them more then they trust Diebold.
I don't see any real way to trust any "single" group with the security of the system. Because of this the only way to truly ensure that the system is fair and unbiased would be to either have a voter verifiable paper trail, or a completely open system that can be tested by anyone who wants to ensure the neutral nature of the software/hardware. Preferably both an open system and a voter verifiable paper trail would be used for maximum safety.
Most strategy games release many expansions for the game that continue to keep the game profitable months and years after release. I was wondering if you are worried that adding the ability for users to create their own mods will decrease expansions sales? Do you think that the sales, and buzz, of the full game will make up for the difference in likely decreased expansion pack sales?
I haven't been able to access the link to this article. Has it already been /.ed? If so, does anyone have another link so that I can read the article before I comment on it.
I am not completely sure about this, but I believe that private property owners do _not_ have a right to monitor you in the restroom. Although you are on their property, they are still invading your privacy when they monitor the restroom as a restroom has an inherit expectation of privacy.
I for one wouldn't count out the possibility of this channel actually becoming popular. I mean, it seems to be feeding off the viral video phenomenon that the Internet has created. If it can really manage to get material that is as addictive as all these viral videos then it has a chance.
The only real concern I have is that it is selling itself as a news channel. There really isn't much viral news out there on the internet. But it will be nice to see them give it a try anyways. Could be the first _new_ approach to television in years.
I definitly agree that it is sad to see people reject anything and everything that challenges their view of how the world is, especially when the evidence supports the challenge. I was, however, merely pointing out that in this situation the people were just doing what they were there to do, mainly give their opinion of the film. Had they lied about how they felt it wouldn't have helped the theater in any way, and might have hurt them. Better for the theater to know that a portion of their audience would be offended by the movie, then to be blissfully ignorant and assume that everyone would want to se e the film.
You said it yourself. These were "focus groups". That means that the theater brought these people in _to_ comment on the movie. These weren't people actively seeking to protest the movie, but just doing their job. If the theater ended up with an unbalanced focus group filled with fundamentalists then that is their own fault. So it seems that it really might be as simple as them trying to show a profitable movie after all.