a privacy policy isn't worth the paper (or ram/disk space) it's written on. once your data leaves you, expect that it will fall into the wrong hands and be misused. of that you can be assured.
the original poster was talking about how the gov rushed out a hypothesis in order to be seen to be doing something and that after that point any real research oppertunities were denied. i didn't say i agreed with it but the fact that you started talking about x-files just proves my point about "conspiracy" crying folks like yourself.
that hiv is completely regarded as causing aids NOW wasn't what i was discussing. the original poster was alleging that through mistakes and ineptness that researchers who wanted the opportunity to do actual research were denied because the assumption at the time was already set.
my original assertion about crying "conspiracy" stands. what does the grandparents post have to do with "conspiracies"? and can you reply without mentioning the x-files and aliens. what i believe is irrelevant, i only wanted a direct response to the situation alleged by the grandparent. lumping me in with "kooks" and "alien abductees" simply because i wanted to discuss said alleged situation shows a poor response on your part.
now i do apologize for my use of "ignorant dummies" but the reason i said that was because i was at that point, quite fed up with the rampant and incorrect use of the word conspiracy. and since neither the original poster or myself said anything regarding "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement" why did you use the word conspiracy?
this is beyond absurd now but i just have a thing for causes such as this. so if you'll excuse me of my rash and impulsive behavior, we can forget this happened.
if you had read the the parent's post correctly you would feel like an utter fool. it was about inefficient gov beauracracies leading towards only accepting proposals that start with the assumption that hiv causes aids. in other words, for researchers who might assume differently, there's no chance to receive gov funding.
you ignorant dummies who cry "conspiracy" don't even know what the hell it means.
if computer is apple or linux or windows, you'll be bombared by attempts to infect you. the internet you connect to will be a more hostile place and be slower as a result.
if you're an island, more power to you. the fact there isn't an island in existence might be a little discouraging but don't let that stop you from making a fool of yourself.
stupid dickheads harm us all. someone elses misfortune tends to become your own over time.
customer becoming aware of all the billions the cartels stole as a result of brib^H^H^H^ err lobbying congress. yes, in this case, steal is the right and correct word. tens of thousands of works would be public domain now had it not been for those meddling cartels.
once the average person realizes what copyright is and how it's been so utterly misused, then the cartels will have their judgement day.
everything is else a smokescreen, so people don't address the real and actual issue. copyright law.
everything else is a smokescreen or red herring if you will. remember that. it has nothing to do with file sharing, recordable media ( what other kind of media is there?). when they give back the hundreds of billions of dollars and return copyright law back to less than 10 years, no criminalization for non-profit infringement, no DMCA, etc then and only then will they get it.
actions speak louder than words but words are their only weapons (cept for congress). learn the meaning of their weapons then they lose their power.
the scales of copyright are so EXTREMELY in the favor of copyright "holders" that it's stifling actual commerce and hurts "progress of science and arts". they have failed so miserably at their end of the bargain that something very drastic needs to be done, some of which i've detailed above.
copyright laws were anywhere near sensible, we'd be getting the source code for all programs on a regular basis. not that i'm trying to diminish iD's contribution but let's keep things in perspective. or as they used to say "keep your eyes on the prize, hold on".
engines nowadays are far more advanced than q3's, so it isn't very viable for most commercial ventures. still it's quite a nice little engine that runs beautifully on current and older hardware.
superpi no doubt. it's an ancient win32 program (1995) that uses no simd whatsoever and is not designed for current cpus. there are much faster pi calculation programs around. honestly, one wonders why this particular program is so popular.
but it's a moot point anyway, the 7.1ghz p4 performs like a 3-4ghz athlon64. i did happen to read the article (gasp) and the user could only boot into the OS at 6.6ghz... which somewhat defeats the purpose of this story.
i am not advocating that apple should support unauthorized configurations. what i want is for apple to allow the possibility of people who purchase the x86 version of osx to run it on computers they might already own. to not have them restrict osx artificially through the use of DRM. in this case DRM wouldn't be used to prevent copyright infringement, it would be used to prevent running osx on "unapproved" devices.
maybe you don't see osx as software. maybe you see it as an inseperable piece of the mac hardware. if that's the case, i can understand your inability to see any other point of view. but if you view osx as software, then why do you object to being able to run it on any computer able to execute the instructions? if one has purchased the software, why do you wish to prevent them in using it in a manner that is consistent with commerce (i.e. having the ability to use one's purchase in accordance with one's wishes).
my disagreement is on a single point... you say that even after they sell OSX to you, that apple still owns it. this flies in the face of the entire human history. what other products behave this way? if you buy something, don't you have the right to use it? why does the producer's rights trump the customer's?
tell me where in my argument that i'm being dishonest? that i'm expecting a merchant to allow me to use my purchased product is dishonest? the merchant is going out of their way to make sure i use a product in a way they don't want... if you cannot see why that is unethical, then i guess i have nothing more to say on this subject.
thanks for the discussion. i bid you a pleasant day.
so you just want people to either take it or leave it. i'm guessing you have a mac (though i could be wrong), so obviously having osx on non-apple x86 is a non issue for you. but for me it brings up a rights issue. even if i don't personally do business with them, i see this as further eroding our rights... if you think "consumer protection" is a false concept, then that's your way of thinking... i humbly disagree.
the tiresome part is the that i'm advocating for things the way they should be and you're explaining what is. what is, is not a good enough situation for me and many others. i seek change.
the personal attacks have no place in here, so i'm very sorry about bringing that up.
you've got it backwards. when a person or company produces a product, once that product is bought by a customer, the producer can no longer claim any ownership of said product. now software is slightly different in that the original is still with the producer. the tricky part is determining what rights the producer and customer have.
copyright law (not a license agreement/EULA) says that you cannot distribute any copies unless you are the copyright holder. there is no law, moral or legal which states that the customer must use products in only a way that the previous owner wants you to.
there are no licenses of which you speak in copyright law. the fact that so many (relatively few, since the majority of software purchasers haven't a clue that there is a mysterious document which they didn't sign has any control over them. imagine the horror and outrage when they discover en masse, such a situation) people believe that a EULA/license is binding is because the overpowerful overlords said so. i do not feel bound by any "contract" i did not sign or agree to. licenses themselves are against the agreement between the public and copyright holders. copyright doesn't allow holders to forbid anything other than making unauthorized copies.
and you are seriously in trouble. you believe someone who is even a tiny bit anti-apple must seriously be pro microsoft. i don't like the practices of just about most large corps. they behave like bullies not to mention the enormous criminal and unethical issues they get away with. to deny customers the ability to use their bought product in a way they see fit is evil. there's just no way around it that i can see. apple makes good software but they are big time bullies.
that would be the case if they stopped artificially restricting how a customer's copy of osx would work.
going out of your way to make sure a product doesn't work on hardware you don't approve of... smacks of rotten behavior consistent with intel and microsoft.
i'm curious as to what level of reading comprehension you possess. it's not a time-limited transaction i.e. that apple doesn't sell x86 osx right now is completely irrelevant to my current discussion.
apple has announced they won't let you run x86 osx, when you buy a copy, on anything other than the hardware they want you to. they even use insidious computing to prevent lawful and fair use of your bought software (at the time when it goes on sale). EULA's have as much moral and legal authority as satan. if they do start attaching EULA's to everything that exists in the world, then we'll have to talk about that specific situation in the future.
if one didn't know any better, one would think apple was just another corporation.
i didn't know you could copy BMW's cheaply and easily?
if they want to be compensated, they need to change their business model. the RIAA/MPAA want to be compensated too as does microsoft. perhaps we should just bend over and lubricate ourselves while we wait for them to get to us.
if you're happy to be a sheep, good for you. many others are not even remotely interested in grazing.
yeah, but as soon as someone purchases a copy of osx, it belongs to the customer. that apple goes out of it's way to prevent legitimate usage of said product is what people are complaining about and justifiably so.
imagine microsoft pulling shit like this (which they do and people call them on it).
take your head out of the kool aid bowl before you drown.
Slashdot Mirror
welcome to the real world.
a privacy policy isn't worth the paper (or ram/disk space) it's written on. once your data leaves you, expect that it will fall into the wrong hands and be misused. of that you can be assured.
and it would still be overpriced.
again you don't have a clue as to what i wrote.
the original poster was talking about how the gov rushed out a hypothesis in order to be seen to be doing something and that after that point any real research oppertunities were denied. i didn't say i agreed with it but the fact that you started talking about x-files just proves my point about "conspiracy" crying folks like yourself.
that hiv is completely regarded as causing aids NOW wasn't what i was discussing. the original poster was alleging that through mistakes and ineptness that researchers who wanted the opportunity to do actual research were denied because the assumption at the time was already set.
my original assertion about crying "conspiracy" stands. what does the grandparents post have to do with "conspiracies"? and can you reply without mentioning the x-files and aliens. what i believe is irrelevant, i only wanted a direct response to the situation alleged by the grandparent. lumping me in with "kooks" and "alien abductees" simply because i wanted to discuss said alleged situation shows a poor response on your part.
now i do apologize for my use of "ignorant dummies" but the reason i said that was because i was at that point, quite fed up with the rampant and incorrect use of the word conspiracy. and since neither the original poster or myself said anything regarding "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement" why did you use the word conspiracy?
this is beyond absurd now but i just have a thing for causes such as this. so if you'll excuse me of my rash and impulsive behavior, we can forget this happened.
if you had read the the parent's post correctly you would feel like an utter fool. it was about inefficient gov beauracracies leading towards only accepting proposals that start with the assumption that hiv causes aids. in other words, for researchers who might assume differently, there's no chance to receive gov funding.
you ignorant dummies who cry "conspiracy" don't even know what the hell it means.
i'm glad i run linux too.... on my router. it happens to stop just about all external threats.
now we know ms is evil but they simply CANNOT defile the english language like that. we shouldn't stand for it.
if computer is apple or linux or windows, you'll be bombared by attempts to infect you. the internet you connect to will be a more hostile place and be slower as a result.
if you're an island, more power to you. the fact there isn't an island in existence might be a little discouraging but don't let that stop you from making a fool of yourself.
stupid dickheads harm us all. someone elses misfortune tends to become your own over time.
only if you're naive enough to have installed flash.
if you desperately need to see the bli**-bli** of the week, use a stand-alone flash player.
macromedia can **** off and die.
which is why such websites should die a horrible death.
if wahabism must be destroyed, which is an honorable thing to do, why not also go after the people who created it?
i for one welcome our naive welcomer of overlords.
the few rotten apples are infecting the whole barrel.
what do YOU propose we do about the few?
customer becoming aware of all the billions the cartels stole as a result of brib^H^H^H^ err lobbying congress. yes, in this case, steal is the right and correct word. tens of thousands of works would be public domain now had it not been for those meddling cartels.
once the average person realizes what copyright is and how it's been so utterly misused, then the cartels will have their judgement day.
everything is else a smokescreen, so people don't address the real and actual issue. copyright law.
everything else is a smokescreen or red herring if you will. remember that. it has nothing to do with file sharing, recordable media ( what other kind of media is there?). when they give back the hundreds of billions of dollars and return copyright law back to less than 10 years, no criminalization for non-profit infringement, no DMCA, etc then and only then will they get it.
actions speak louder than words but words are their only weapons (cept for congress). learn the meaning of their weapons then they lose their power.
the scales of copyright are so EXTREMELY in the favor of copyright "holders" that it's stifling actual commerce and hurts "progress of science and arts". they have failed so miserably at their end of the bargain that something very drastic needs to be done, some of which i've detailed above.
that debeers assassinates aritificial diamond makers...
the oil industry makes debeers look like saints.
they'd set fire to your lawn and kill your dog too.
and that's if they like you personally.
forever. since it breaks apple's business model, don't expect it anytime soon.
copyright laws were anywhere near sensible, we'd be getting the source code for all programs on a regular basis. not that i'm trying to diminish iD's contribution but let's keep things in perspective. or as they used to say "keep your eyes on the prize, hold on".
engines nowadays are far more advanced than q3's, so it isn't very viable for most commercial ventures. still it's quite a nice little engine that runs beautifully on current and older hardware.
good job iD.
superpi no doubt. it's an ancient win32 program (1995) that uses no simd whatsoever and is not designed for current cpus. there are much faster pi calculation programs around. honestly, one wonders why this particular program is so popular.
but it's a moot point anyway, the 7.1ghz p4 performs like a 3-4ghz athlon64. i did happen to read the article (gasp) and the user could only boot into the OS at 6.6ghz... which somewhat defeats the purpose of this story.
i am not advocating that apple should support unauthorized configurations. what i want is for apple to allow the possibility of people who purchase the x86 version of osx to run it on computers they might already own. to not have them restrict osx artificially through the use of DRM. in this case DRM wouldn't be used to prevent copyright infringement, it would be used to prevent running osx on "unapproved" devices.
maybe you don't see osx as software. maybe you see it as an inseperable piece of the mac hardware. if that's the case, i can understand your inability to see any other point of view. but if you view osx as software, then why do you object to being able to run it on any computer able to execute the instructions? if one has purchased the software, why do you wish to prevent them in using it in a manner that is consistent with commerce (i.e. having the ability to use one's purchase in accordance with one's wishes).
my disagreement is on a single point... you say that even after they sell OSX to you, that apple still owns it. this flies in the face of the entire human history. what other products behave this way? if you buy something, don't you have the right to use it? why does the producer's rights trump the customer's?
tell me where in my argument that i'm being dishonest? that i'm expecting a merchant to allow me to use my purchased product is dishonest? the merchant is going out of their way to make sure i use a product in a way they don't want... if you cannot see why that is unethical, then i guess i have nothing more to say on this subject.
thanks for the discussion. i bid you a pleasant day.
so you just want people to either take it or leave it. i'm guessing you have a mac (though i could be wrong), so obviously having osx on non-apple x86 is a non issue for you. but for me it brings up a rights issue. even if i don't personally do business with them, i see this as further eroding our rights... if you think "consumer protection" is a false concept, then that's your way of thinking... i humbly disagree.
the tiresome part is the that i'm advocating for things the way they should be and you're explaining what is. what is, is not a good enough situation for me and many others. i seek change.
the personal attacks have no place in here, so i'm very sorry about bringing that up.
you've got it backwards. when a person or company produces a product, once that product is bought by a customer, the producer can no longer claim any ownership of said product. now software is slightly different in that the original is still with the producer. the tricky part is determining what rights the producer and customer have.
/EULA) says that you cannot distribute any copies unless you are the copyright holder. there is no law, moral or legal which states that the customer must use products in only a way that the previous owner wants you to.
copyright law (not a license agreement
there are no licenses of which you speak in copyright law. the fact that so many (relatively few, since the majority of software purchasers haven't a clue that there is a mysterious document which they didn't sign has any control over them. imagine the horror and outrage when they discover en masse, such a situation) people believe that a EULA/license is binding is because the overpowerful overlords said so. i do not feel bound by any "contract" i did not sign or agree to. licenses themselves are against the agreement between the public and copyright holders. copyright doesn't allow holders to forbid anything other than making unauthorized copies.
and you are seriously in trouble. you believe someone who is even a tiny bit anti-apple must seriously be pro microsoft. i don't like the practices of just about most large corps. they behave like bullies not to mention the enormous criminal and unethical issues they get away with. to deny customers the ability to use their bought product in a way they see fit is evil. there's just no way around it that i can see. apple makes good software but they are big time bullies.
true that part was my fault. and i do apologize for it.
but i also appreciate how you avoided the points i brought up.
so if you really do want to discuss this in the future, i promise i will not give you any reasons to stop the discussion prematurely.
sincerely yours, mistaken for a troll because of my strong views, KS.
that would be the case if they stopped artificially restricting how a customer's copy of osx would work.
going out of your way to make sure a product doesn't work on hardware you don't approve of... smacks of rotten behavior consistent with intel and microsoft.
i'm curious as to what level of reading comprehension you possess. it's not a time-limited transaction i.e. that apple doesn't sell x86 osx right now is completely irrelevant to my current discussion.
apple has announced they won't let you run x86 osx, when you buy a copy, on anything other than the hardware they want you to. they even use insidious computing to prevent lawful and fair use of your bought software (at the time when it goes on sale). EULA's have as much moral and legal authority as satan. if they do start attaching EULA's to everything that exists in the world, then we'll have to talk about that specific situation in the future.
if one didn't know any better, one would think apple was just another corporation.
i didn't know you could copy BMW's cheaply and easily?
if they want to be compensated, they need to change their business model. the RIAA/MPAA want to be compensated too as does microsoft. perhaps we should just bend over and lubricate ourselves while we wait for them to get to us.
if you're happy to be a sheep, good for you. many others are not even remotely interested in grazing.
yeah, but as soon as someone purchases a copy of osx, it belongs to the customer. that apple goes out of it's way to prevent legitimate usage of said product is what people are complaining about and justifiably so.
imagine microsoft pulling shit like this (which they do and people call them on it).
take your head out of the kool aid bowl before you drown.