I 100% agree that the President (be it Republican or Democrat) receives way too much credit and blame for everything that happens in a country. This is a clear case of an individual county making a decision, not Obama. However, it does match Obama's philosophy of regulating everything, massive govnernment control, etc.
My daughter quickly learned that Burger King and McDonalds had toys. That didn't mean I had to take her there. If she really wants to go to a fast food place and get a toy, I take her to Subway and get her a turkey sandwich.
Responsible parenting isn't all that hard.
It really gets me that people who scream so loudly about freedom and liberty and usually the ones who want to take it away piece by piece with legislation.
VHS tapes are still used en masse in security systems. But I really am struggling to think of any reason to buy floppies en masse. Even poor countries would be better off buying flash storage because of how expensive floppies are for what you get.
People are supposed to read stuff on/.? I thought this was just a running contest to accrue first posts and make jokes about bad car analogies, Soviet Russia, new overlords, Natalie Portman, ??? and PROFIT!
You're suggesting most artists aren't Democrats? Demographics don't lie.
Steal is a serious misnomer here. Someone linked three articles accusing McCain and Republicans of "stealing" music. They were playing music at a rally. They weren't broadcasting over the air. They weren't putting it in ads. They weren't selling it.
If they were "stealing" songs, then so is everyone on the planet who ever plays music at any type of rally. Have you ever been to a corporate or political convention?
I went through the process of asking to have my account deleted. I stopped using Facebook for over a year. A quick Google search still showed my profile as visible. I went back to the site a year later, and logged in just fine. My account never went anywhere and was never deleted.
The real problem here is that Facebook pledged on their website that information was going to be private. Now they're sharing that very information and not even giving you any option to opt-out of it. They lied to all their users.
Could it be said they defrauder users for information that they've deemed valuable enough to sell to partner sites?
Many of the complaints I've seen uttered aren't in political ads (where I can see a serious copyright case) but rather just coming on stage. Several artists were upset about the music Palin came on stage with, because they didn't want to be associated with her.
Democrats use music in their campaign rallys and conventions as well. I'll bet my paycheck they don't pay to license it.
This is a case where it isn't clear if copyright was violated because the music was re-recorded as satire.
Reading the links above, I'm not seeing copyright infringement. They're talking about music being played live at rallies.
Iron Man is popular in comic book circles, but I think it is fair to say that Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Iron Man, etc. are second-tier heroes to the Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men first-tier.
The new Batman films (Nolan-verse as I call it) are good films in their own right. They aren't just good by superhero standards.
Maybe I'm not entirely fair because The Dark Knight is a second film. Sometimes the second film in a superhero franchise moves away from the already known origin story and hits the ground running.
Superman 2 > Superman X-Men 2 > X-Men Spiderman 2 > Spiderman The Dark Night > Batman Begins
I'm hoping Iron Man 2 makes the same leap. If this reviewer is correct, it doesn't make that leap.
That being said, this isn't a matter of free speech. You're suggesting that I should have the right to freely redistribute Avatar if I accompanied it with political speech.
Any politician has the right to say anything that want about another politician (just in that you should have the right to say anything about me you want), but that doesn't give you the right to breach copyright.
However, there is a seperate debate here about whether or not copyright was breached. If this is satire, it could be fair use.
I attribute this to the majority of musicians, filmmakers and artists being Democrats. When a Democrat uses a song without paying for it from an artist who is a Democrat, they're not going to complain.
Then your XP install was probably riddled with spyware, viruses or crapware. A fresh install of 7 is not faster than a fresh install of XP on the same hardware.
Look at the minimum requirements for each if you don't believe me. Or check most every benchmark done on the subject.
RDJ is charismatic. The first film was fun. It may be the best looking BluRay I own. But most of us went in with relatively low expectations and were impressed. That doesn't mean the first film deserved all the praise it got. It doesn't hold up really well to repeat viewings. There isn't a whole lot of great action or tension.
Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.
I've been hoping this film would be a marked improvement over the first one and have better action sequences.
Google needs to either completely revamp Orkut, or launch a better social network. Buzz isn't it. Buzz is just status updates, akin to Twitter.
Google could release a Facebook killer with a revamped Orkut that brings Youtube, Picasa, Google Docs, Gmail, Wave, Buzz, etc. all together. Give them time.
Google owns 67% of the search Market. Microsoft and Yahoo compromised the other 33% for the most part. Now that Microsoft is powering the search for both Microsoft and Yahoo, they do basically have 33% by themselves now.
So there you go.
And while I understand the massive distrust of any big company, Google has a great track record. Microsoft has a terrible one. Why root for Microsoft in this fight?
Blind studies comparing the two consistently show that users rate Google's results better, even when they don't know what search engine is producing the results.
Your opinion flies in the face of statistical research. Why do you think Bing is better?
The ones with massive failure rates that cost Microsoft boatloads of money?
They are quite popular, but they still aren't making money for Microsoft. If you're still losing money two generations into the console business, you're doing something wrong.
I think the company that will eventually kick Microsoft's butt in this arena is neither Nintendo (different niche really) nor Sony. Apple tried a gaming console once and failed miserably, but it was basically a computer platform with no developers.
The iPhone/iPad Touch/iPad is already quickly threatening Nintendo in the handheld department with casual games. But imagine if Apple used the same App Store for a gaming console?
The controller would be a touch surface with accelerometers. Existing games in the App Store would all immediately work. They already have the massive library of games, but the "console" would provide more gaming power and a constant internet connection to enable Halo-killers and the like alongside casual games.
Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft would all quake in their boots.
I agree with most of your post, but you're comparing all of Microsoft (with tons of divisions and profits) to Mozilla, which has one primary product. Mozilla also happens to give their only product away for free, and still turns a decent profit.
A better comparison would be to put it head-to-head with IE, not Microsoft on the whole. Compare development and support costs internally at Microsoft for the IE team, to revenue that IE generates directly. I wager IE loses money for Microsoft.
Microsoft is happy to lose that money because they want you to buy their OS, avoid being introduced to OSS, and push some of their other platforms that tie heavily into IE (ASP and.NET web development).
Microsoft has a patent to sell your personal information to the highest bidder. Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo censored results in China with no objections. Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo all handed over your personal data to George W. Bush. Microsoft and Yahoo have handed over details to the Chinese government on users.
Google has never handed over private data on its users, except for one case in Brazil when they were ordered by a judge repeatedly to hand over data on a child porn ring. Google has fought the US government to protect your privacy, and fought China to protect user rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Terrible, like my typo of terrible above. You'd think I'd know how to type by now.
As a parental rule, it is good.
As legislation, it is terible.
I 100% agree that the President (be it Republican or Democrat) receives way too much credit and blame for everything that happens in a country. This is a clear case of an individual county making a decision, not Obama. However, it does match Obama's philosophy of regulating everything, massive govnernment control, etc.
My daughter quickly learned that Burger King and McDonalds had toys. That didn't mean I had to take her there. If she really wants to go to a fast food place and get a toy, I take her to Subway and get her a turkey sandwich.
Responsible parenting isn't all that hard.
It really gets me that people who scream so loudly about freedom and liberty and usually the ones who want to take it away piece by piece with legislation.
VHS tapes are still used en masse in security systems. But I really am struggling to think of any reason to buy floppies en masse. Even poor countries would be better off buying flash storage because of how expensive floppies are for what you get.
People are supposed to read stuff on /.? I thought this was just a running contest to accrue first posts and make jokes about bad car analogies, Soviet Russia, new overlords, Natalie Portman, ??? and PROFIT!
If you read Slashdot daily you'd have seen them yourself.
Amazingly enough, a quick Google search shows me a blind study of Google, Bing and Yahoo search results.
http://mashable.com/2009/06/07/blindsearch/
Guess who won in convincing fashion?
Don't try and call me a liar. I don't appreciate it.
A car analogy on Slashdot?
You're suggesting most artists aren't Democrats? Demographics don't lie.
Steal is a serious misnomer here. Someone linked three articles accusing McCain and Republicans of "stealing" music. They were playing music at a rally. They weren't broadcasting over the air. They weren't putting it in ads. They weren't selling it.
If they were "stealing" songs, then so is everyone on the planet who ever plays music at any type of rally. Have you ever been to a corporate or political convention?
I went through the process of asking to have my account deleted. I stopped using Facebook for over a year. A quick Google search still showed my profile as visible. I went back to the site a year later, and logged in just fine. My account never went anywhere and was never deleted.
The real problem here is that Facebook pledged on their website that information was going to be private. Now they're sharing that very information and not even giving you any option to opt-out of it. They lied to all their users.
Could it be said they defrauder users for information that they've deemed valuable enough to sell to partner sites?
This is a major misstep.
You're suggesting he didn't write political comedy for SNL?
Didn't Obama give sweet appointments to a bunch of RIAA lawyers?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
That being said, we're veering way off-topic. I maintain my position that both parties usually have dirty hands.
Many of the complaints I've seen uttered aren't in political ads (where I can see a serious copyright case) but rather just coming on stage. Several artists were upset about the music Palin came on stage with, because they didn't want to be associated with her.
Democrats use music in their campaign rallys and conventions as well. I'll bet my paycheck they don't pay to license it.
This is a case where it isn't clear if copyright was violated because the music was re-recorded as satire.
Reading the links above, I'm not seeing copyright infringement. They're talking about music being played live at rallies.
Iron Man is popular in comic book circles, but I think it is fair to say that Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Iron Man, etc. are second-tier heroes to the Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men first-tier.
The new Batman films (Nolan-verse as I call it) are good films in their own right. They aren't just good by superhero standards.
Maybe I'm not entirely fair because The Dark Knight is a second film. Sometimes the second film in a superhero franchise moves away from the already known origin story and hits the ground running.
Superman 2 > Superman
X-Men 2 > X-Men
Spiderman 2 > Spiderman
The Dark Night > Batman Begins
I'm hoping Iron Man 2 makes the same leap. If this reviewer is correct, it doesn't make that leap.
I believe in 100% unfettered free speech.
That being said, this isn't a matter of free speech. You're suggesting that I should have the right to freely redistribute Avatar if I accompanied it with political speech.
Any politician has the right to say anything that want about another politician (just in that you should have the right to say anything about me you want), but that doesn't give you the right to breach copyright.
However, there is a seperate debate here about whether or not copyright was breached. If this is satire, it could be fair use.
I attribute this to the majority of musicians, filmmakers and artists being Democrats. When a Democrat uses a song without paying for it from an artist who is a Democrat, they're not going to complain.
It also turns out that most hardware from 2010 runs measurably better on Windows 7 almost every time.
Really?
Is that why benchmarks with modern (2010) hardware still shows better gaming performance with XP than 7?
Please cite a source showing that 7 actually runs faster on most hardware today.
Then your XP install was probably riddled with spyware, viruses or crapware. A fresh install of 7 is not faster than a fresh install of XP on the same hardware.
Look at the minimum requirements for each if you don't believe me. Or check most every benchmark done on the subject.
RDJ is charismatic. The first film was fun. It may be the best looking BluRay I own. But most of us went in with relatively low expectations and were impressed. That doesn't mean the first film deserved all the praise it got. It doesn't hold up really well to repeat viewings. There isn't a whole lot of great action or tension.
Watch Iron Man again. Then watch Dark Knight again. Tell me Iron Man is in the same class.
I've been hoping this film would be a marked improvement over the first one and have better action sequences.
Google needs to either completely revamp Orkut, or launch a better social network. Buzz isn't it. Buzz is just status updates, akin to Twitter.
Google could release a Facebook killer with a revamped Orkut that brings Youtube, Picasa, Google Docs, Gmail, Wave, Buzz, etc. all together. Give them time.
The XBox division loses money hand over first. Playstation sales aren't bad. But Wii sales are through the roof, and they turn a massive profit.
Who won again?
Google owns 67% of the search Market. Microsoft and Yahoo compromised the other 33% for the most part. Now that Microsoft is powering the search for both Microsoft and Yahoo, they do basically have 33% by themselves now.
So there you go.
And while I understand the massive distrust of any big company, Google has a great track record. Microsoft has a terrible one. Why root for Microsoft in this fight?
Blind studies comparing the two consistently show that users rate Google's results better, even when they don't know what search engine is producing the results.
Your opinion flies in the face of statistical research. Why do you think Bing is better?
The ones with massive failure rates that cost Microsoft boatloads of money?
They are quite popular, but they still aren't making money for Microsoft. If you're still losing money two generations into the console business, you're doing something wrong.
I think the company that will eventually kick Microsoft's butt in this arena is neither Nintendo (different niche really) nor Sony. Apple tried a gaming console once and failed miserably, but it was basically a computer platform with no developers.
The iPhone/iPad Touch/iPad is already quickly threatening Nintendo in the handheld department with casual games. But imagine if Apple used the same App Store for a gaming console?
The controller would be a touch surface with accelerometers. Existing games in the App Store would all immediately work. They already have the massive library of games, but the "console" would provide more gaming power and a constant internet connection to enable Halo-killers and the like alongside casual games.
Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft would all quake in their boots.
I agree with most of your post, but you're comparing all of Microsoft (with tons of divisions and profits) to Mozilla, which has one primary product. Mozilla also happens to give their only product away for free, and still turns a decent profit.
A better comparison would be to put it head-to-head with IE, not Microsoft on the whole. Compare development and support costs internally at Microsoft for the IE team, to revenue that IE generates directly. I wager IE loses money for Microsoft.
Microsoft is happy to lose that money because they want you to buy their OS, avoid being introduced to OSS, and push some of their other platforms that tie heavily into IE (ASP and .NET web development).
Microsoft has a patent to sell your personal information to the highest bidder. Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo censored results in China with no objections. Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo all handed over your personal data to George W. Bush. Microsoft and Yahoo have handed over details to the Chinese government on users.
Google has never handed over private data on its users, except for one case in Brazil when they were ordered by a judge repeatedly to hand over data on a child porn ring. Google has fought the US government to protect your privacy, and fought China to protect user rights.
Which one do you trust again, and why?