I'm sorry, but if you are asking I leave because I'm exercising those oh so valued 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech, perhaps it is you who should vacate this land?:)
First, I'm an American, don't go calling me some stupid European who knows nothing about the USA. I'm a smart american who knows how stupid americans are;) (ment with humor).
Secondly, American's are saying this is "unconstitutional" or "it shifts costs of replies to the owner of the site."
Show me an amendment that grants the right of the original poster of a comment on the internet the right to not have to display a rebuttal? That's insane. There is no such constitutional amendment preventing this. In fact this is more constitutional than unconstitutional. I would be guarenteed the right to "free speech" in responding to my accusers. It would have a chilling effect on media, but this is a GOOD thing. People should not go around accusing others of poor decision making without proof. If fact, would media be better if it were about multiple parties sitting down and discussing the issue rather than getting one editorial point of view?
Also, this is from an editorial point of view. Note in the United States if I said "Michael Jackson is a child molester" and this had serious effects on his reputation and I had no proof, Mike can already sue me under Slander/libel law. If I come out and say "George Bush has made terrible decisions and here is what they are," I would be rather elated to find George posting on my website a rebuttal. I could then engage him in direct discussion. If I reported on some joe shmoe down the street who had an internet connection but no site and criticized him for his lawn care, then perhaps he should get the right to rebutt so he can tell everyone why rather than get just one point of view.
Finally, if you are posting about your people in your neighborhood and how dumb they are for doing this or that, and they don't have the ability to reply on your website, who does that hurt? It hurts them! You shouldn't be posting such information without proof to back it up and if they can rebutt you they should have the right. Otherwise its a one sided publication, and not a discussion.
What's nice about this proposal is that it would turn media into an open forum. Yanno.... like slashdot.
And you would think Slashdotters would be all over that idea.
What does the first amendment have to do with this law? The first amendment does not guarentee or deny the right of someone to reply to information posted publically about themselves.
In fact, the first amendment GUARENTEES the right of you to stand up and say what you want, including the ability to issue a public rebuttal against someone's comments towards you.
The closest amendment here would be the "right to confront your accuser" but this is only for court.
IANAL, especially a constitutional one, but I can't see how one would prevent this from passing in the United States on Constitutional grounds.
This would make sense, if most of the suppliers were actually performing legal operations. The fact is while not all of them are illegal, many are. Viagra is not available without a prescription in the United States, so it is illegal to sell it to someone without said prescription.
So if they are already quasi-legal or illegal operations trying to spam people with ways of getting these products, or even making them think they can get good prices on products that are in fact scams, then suing them is not going to scare them any more than criminal action, especially if you can't find them in order to serve them papers.
Ugh. I can't think of anything more disgusting than handling something that is guaranteed to have been in the possession of someone clutching their own genitals.
You don't seem to understand. In the porn market this is actually a selling point!
Its pretty simple. It's what sells and gets hits on a website. We just got off coverage in a war in Iraq but its still fresh in the american public's mind. Americans eat up war coverage and anything to do with technology and weapons.
For those of you humor-challenged./ers, timothy was referring to the requirements that the DoD was placing on software contracts in general (and really any contract for that matter), not about the actual requirements being slanted away from OSS or anything else for that matter.
The United States has for many decades been fostering a culture of "fear and consumption." Its beautifully illustrated in Bowling for Columbine. I recommend this to everyone outside the US to understand a little bit about the US, and I wish it was required middle school viewing, and maybe, just maybe, we'd turn things around.
Americans are so scared on so many different levels its ridiculous. We are scared of being killed by terrorists. Scared our children might turn out to be deviants or perverts. Scared of losing our money. Yet we are also scared of zits, bad looks, being overweight, losing our hair, and not having more toys than the next door neighbor.
1) make it take too long to download webpages 2) Make it impossible for physically disabled individuals to use your webpage, thus possibly losing business. 3) Make it take forever to actually come up with the GIFs and link them to the appropriate flight/trip/fare. Imagine the prices. 4) make it only marginally harder for the scrapers who then find out that either you have a pattern to which GIFs are used for which digits in your numbers for prices... OR 5) Show everyone how much money you are willing to waste by encoding every single fare for each flight into its own GIF with a unique identifier and thus blowing your investment.
Actually the original iMacs were more silent than this. Original iMacs with the CRT screen were cooled with a number of heat syncs and by convection; the heat simply rose out of the back of the case. You couldn't hear the hard drive unless you had really good ears and tried to listen, and the only time you could hear anything was when a CD spun up.
So lets see... that would put this whole project, what, 4-5 years behind?
Regardless about how myself, you or anyone else in particular feel about hate crimes, there is a push nationwide for legislation making punishments for hate crimes more strict than for a similar crime. There are already laws in several states on the books that do this.
My example in this case was to illustrate that just because it may seem straight forward to at least someone that this is the way it should be, if its not clear in the constitution its not a law and it doesn't get handled as such until a law is enacted.
And to further support this, look at the legislation brough to us over the years that has made it a crime for employers to discriminate based on race, gender, ethnic background, etc. We still don't have equal rights for gays and lesbians yet and its not illegal under the law to discriminate against them.
This is why such groups push for laws to make such discrimination illegal. The first amendment says they can say whatever they want about your sexual orientation, but the first amendment does not say that hate crimes against gays are any worse than other crimes, or that you can't fire someone simply because they are gay.
I'm not sure of the exact language, but the idea is that Apple was not allowed in the music industry. There was argument over the language meaning that Apple could not make music or could they not make music creation technology. Apple records sued for the latter, while Apple said the agreement was for the former, and Apple lost.
That said... as I have stated in the past... THE SUIT HAS BEEN SETTLED. Now that its settled Apple can do whatever they want really. They have iPod, they have iTunes, I'm sure IIgs technology is not really important any more.
Breaking into a computer is easy, Winkler continued. Closing up security holes is the more difficult task -- a skill most hackers lack, he argued.
Winkler obviously has no clue how the entire software industry works. The absolutely most difficult part about working with bugs and security holes is FINDING THEM!!! Thats the skill hacker and crackers have. Once you find the problem, and you can easily replicate it, fixing it is pretty damn easy.
What's more, its not the security experts job to fix the bug, its his job to inform the developer that one exists and its the developers job to fix it.
Its idiotic comments like this that make a person like me, who is not necessarily a supporter or denouncer of Mitnick, think that they are just out to persecute him out of fear.
The question is, is the file format available for anyone else to download or not? If the file format is not available without "buying" a license, then the name is wrong.
If you can download it somewhere freely, then its a case of yet another so-called Journalist who writes for emotion and knows nothing of the english language, and you should beat the writer with rubber chickens for using the wrong word.
Our political system is in a deep long death spiral because our political system is "garbage in, garbage out." You can't elect different people for this reason. While I disagree there is no difference between these two parties, both parties have to some how appeal to the masses to get elected, and when the masses sway in a certain direction, the parties simply follow.
The democrats are in deep shit right now because the entire country is swinging very far to the right on the political spectrum and if the democrats don't follow, they get elected right out of their seats. But there are still plenty of dissenting democrats who are trying to hold on.
Even though the lawsuit IMHO was frivolous (Also IANAL) it was resolved. I believe because Apple Records went after Apple Computer like this it dissolved the previous agreement that Apple could not enter the music business because now "Apple is already in the music business and they paid the price for doing so."
Courtney Love did a great piece on this, I'm sorry I don't have the link to this any more.
Its all in the contract. First, the band signs away rights to their music in order to get it recorded. They also get loans from the label in order to finance a tour. The bands then get indentured to the labels as the labels sponge money off them.
Some of your better talents are either part of fringe labels which don't do such underhanded things or are so popular they don't need major labels any more.
I've seen a lot of good local bands, but people believe to be big you have to be national and that requires a national label. Many of those bands last little more than one album.
Not necessarily true. First, the Apple itself would lose some of its flare for "innovation" with all the current hardware its turning out. You couldn't make iMacs without the low-heat Motorola chips that they have right now. P4s and the like are heat hogs and the little touches steve puts on the Macs are brilliant little things which make the users just a little more happy because "its nice to know a computer maker thought of that, it makes my experience more enjoyable!"
Which leads to the second point, Margins. The hardware market is tight right now and if they used standard parts their margins would drop tremendously, because of point three.
And point three is, you know how many people would be able to buid Macs if you just needed to introduce a simple chip to a standard intel board to get the OS to run? Apple wouldn't be selling as many machines because people would start building their own. Apple is a hardware company and wants to keep it that way.
As a side note, I like Macs, but I don't like these practices and wish there was a way Apple could make money and still provide lower costs for their hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but if you are asking I leave because I'm exercising those oh so valued 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech, perhaps it is you who should vacate this land? :)
That's an oldie but goodie for me... and personally, I agree!!!! ;)
*constantly eyeing the northern border to see when he can make a dash across*
First, I'm an American, don't go calling me some stupid European who knows nothing about the USA. I'm a smart american who knows how stupid americans are ;) (ment with humor).
Secondly, American's are saying this is "unconstitutional" or "it shifts costs of replies to the owner of the site."
Show me an amendment that grants the right of the original poster of a comment on the internet the right to not have to display a rebuttal? That's insane. There is no such constitutional amendment preventing this. In fact this is more constitutional than unconstitutional. I would be guarenteed the right to "free speech" in responding to my accusers. It would have a chilling effect on media, but this is a GOOD thing. People should not go around accusing others of poor decision making without proof. If fact, would media be better if it were about multiple parties sitting down and discussing the issue rather than getting one editorial point of view?
Also, this is from an editorial point of view. Note in the United States if I said "Michael Jackson is a child molester" and this had serious effects on his reputation and I had no proof, Mike can already sue me under Slander/libel law. If I come out and say "George Bush has made terrible decisions and here is what they are," I would be rather elated to find George posting on my website a rebuttal. I could then engage him in direct discussion. If I reported on some joe shmoe down the street who had an internet connection but no site and criticized him for his lawn care, then perhaps he should get the right to rebutt so he can tell everyone why rather than get just one point of view.
Finally, if you are posting about your people in your neighborhood and how dumb they are for doing this or that, and they don't have the ability to reply on your website, who does that hurt? It hurts them! You shouldn't be posting such information without proof to back it up and if they can rebutt you they should have the right. Otherwise its a one sided publication, and not a discussion.
What's nice about this proposal is that it would turn media into an open forum. Yanno.... like slashdot.
And you would think Slashdotters would be all over that idea.
What does the first amendment have to do with this law? The first amendment does not guarentee or deny the right of someone to reply to information posted publically about themselves.
In fact, the first amendment GUARENTEES the right of you to stand up and say what you want, including the ability to issue a public rebuttal against someone's comments towards you.
The closest amendment here would be the "right to confront your accuser" but this is only for court.
IANAL, especially a constitutional one, but I can't see how one would prevent this from passing in the United States on Constitutional grounds.
This would make sense, if most of the suppliers were actually performing legal operations. The fact is while not all of them are illegal, many are. Viagra is not available without a prescription in the United States, so it is illegal to sell it to someone without said prescription.
So if they are already quasi-legal or illegal operations trying to spam people with ways of getting these products, or even making them think they can get good prices on products that are in fact scams, then suing them is not going to scare them any more than criminal action, especially if you can't find them in order to serve them papers.
Ugh. I can't think of anything more disgusting than handling something that is guaranteed to have been in the possession of someone clutching their own genitals.
You don't seem to understand. In the porn market this is actually a selling point!
Its pretty simple. It's what sells and gets hits on a website. We just got off coverage in a war in Iraq but its still fresh in the american public's mind. Americans eat up war coverage and anything to do with technology and weapons.
For those of you humor-challenged ./ers, timothy was referring to the requirements that the DoD was placing on software contracts in general (and really any contract for that matter), not about the actual requirements being slanted away from OSS or anything else for that matter.
Firstly, filter it if you don't like it.
:)
Hear, hear. I second this whole-heartedly.
If you would like a testimonial, my enjoyment of Slashdot skyrocketed when I filtered out all articles written by JonKatz.
Which one puts her in a dominatrix outfit and wielding a number of sexual implements?
Did they include an option where she gets into gangbang with multiple goat-legged males?
The United States has for many decades been fostering a culture of "fear and consumption." Its beautifully illustrated in Bowling for Columbine. I recommend this to everyone outside the US to understand a little bit about the US, and I wish it was required middle school viewing, and maybe, just maybe, we'd turn things around.
Americans are so scared on so many different levels its ridiculous. We are scared of being killed by terrorists. Scared our children might turn out to be deviants or perverts. Scared of losing our money. Yet we are also scared of zits, bad looks, being overweight, losing our hair, and not having more toys than the next door neighbor.
Its extremely sad.
Set the prices as GIFs, then:
1) make it take too long to download webpages
2) Make it impossible for physically disabled individuals to use your webpage, thus possibly losing business.
3) Make it take forever to actually come up with the GIFs and link them to the appropriate flight/trip/fare. Imagine the prices.
4) make it only marginally harder for the scrapers who then find out that either you have a pattern to which GIFs are used for which digits in your numbers for prices... OR
5) Show everyone how much money you are willing to waste by encoding every single fare for each flight into its own GIF with a unique identifier and thus blowing your investment.
Damn you! West Wing is high art!! :)
Actually the original iMacs were more silent than this. Original iMacs with the CRT screen were cooled with a number of heat syncs and by convection; the heat simply rose out of the back of the case. You couldn't hear the hard drive unless you had really good ears and tried to listen, and the only time you could hear anything was when a CD spun up.
So lets see... that would put this whole project, what, 4-5 years behind?
They are?
Regardless about how myself, you or anyone else in particular feel about hate crimes, there is a push nationwide for legislation making punishments for hate crimes more strict than for a similar crime. There are already laws in several states on the books that do this.
My example in this case was to illustrate that just because it may seem straight forward to at least someone that this is the way it should be, if its not clear in the constitution its not a law and it doesn't get handled as such until a law is enacted.
And to further support this, look at the legislation brough to us over the years that has made it a crime for employers to discriminate based on race, gender, ethnic background, etc. We still don't have equal rights for gays and lesbians yet and its not illegal under the law to discriminate against them.
This is why such groups push for laws to make such discrimination illegal. The first amendment says they can say whatever they want about your sexual orientation, but the first amendment does not say that hate crimes against gays are any worse than other crimes, or that you can't fire someone simply because they are gay.
Found it quite entertaining... though I must admit I wasn't "laughing" per se while I was looking...
Do you like... pie?
It had to be said!
I'm not sure of the exact language, but the idea is that Apple was not allowed in the music industry. There was argument over the language meaning that Apple could not make music or could they not make music creation technology. Apple records sued for the latter, while Apple said the agreement was for the former, and Apple lost.
That said... as I have stated in the past... THE SUIT HAS BEEN SETTLED. Now that its settled Apple can do whatever they want really. They have iPod, they have iTunes, I'm sure IIgs technology is not really important any more.
Breaking into a computer is easy, Winkler continued. Closing up security holes is the more difficult task -- a skill most hackers lack, he argued.
Winkler obviously has no clue how the entire software industry works. The absolutely most difficult part about working with bugs and security holes is FINDING THEM!!! Thats the skill hacker and crackers have. Once you find the problem, and you can easily replicate it, fixing it is pretty damn easy.
What's more, its not the security experts job to fix the bug, its his job to inform the developer that one exists and its the developers job to fix it.
Its idiotic comments like this that make a person like me, who is not necessarily a supporter or denouncer of Mitnick, think that they are just out to persecute him out of fear.
The question is, is the file format available for anyone else to download or not? If the file format is not available without "buying" a license, then the name is wrong.
If you can download it somewhere freely, then its a case of yet another so-called Journalist who writes for emotion and knows nothing of the english language, and you should beat the writer with rubber chickens for using the wrong word.
Our political system is in a deep long death spiral because our political system is "garbage in, garbage out." You can't elect different people for this reason. While I disagree there is no difference between these two parties, both parties have to some how appeal to the masses to get elected, and when the masses sway in a certain direction, the parties simply follow.
The democrats are in deep shit right now because the entire country is swinging very far to the right on the political spectrum and if the democrats don't follow, they get elected right out of their seats. But there are still plenty of dissenting democrats who are trying to hold on.
Even though the lawsuit IMHO was frivolous (Also IANAL) it was resolved. I believe because Apple Records went after Apple Computer like this it dissolved the previous agreement that Apple could not enter the music business because now "Apple is already in the music business and they paid the price for doing so."
Again, IANAL...
Courtney Love did a great piece on this, I'm sorry I don't have the link to this any more.
Its all in the contract. First, the band signs away rights to their music in order to get it recorded. They also get loans from the label in order to finance a tour. The bands then get indentured to the labels as the labels sponge money off them.
Some of your better talents are either part of fringe labels which don't do such underhanded things or are so popular they don't need major labels any more.
I've seen a lot of good local bands, but people believe to be big you have to be national and that requires a national label. Many of those bands last little more than one album.
Not necessarily true. First, the Apple itself would lose some of its flare for "innovation" with all the current hardware its turning out. You couldn't make iMacs without the low-heat Motorola chips that they have right now. P4s and the like are heat hogs and the little touches steve puts on the Macs are brilliant little things which make the users just a little more happy because "its nice to know a computer maker thought of that, it makes my experience more enjoyable!"
Which leads to the second point, Margins. The hardware market is tight right now and if they used standard parts their margins would drop tremendously, because of point three.
And point three is, you know how many people would be able to buid Macs if you just needed to introduce a simple chip to a standard intel board to get the OS to run? Apple wouldn't be selling as many machines because people would start building their own. Apple is a hardware company and wants to keep it that way.
As a side note, I like Macs, but I don't like these practices and wish there was a way Apple could make money and still provide lower costs for their hardware.