I'm a bit puzzled at the Editor's choice of a word - I'm sure that if I bought and played the game, it would work in the same way as the 'real' one - and the game was ~copied~, not 'created to resemble' as the word counterfeit implies. Yet I do understand that many are tiring of the word 'pirate'...
How do we know about several men's 'memories' - left in writ? Because we can refer to them whenever we like (should we choose to, which you obviously don't), and can even trace them back to studies and experiments of their predecessors (acts and facts, not 'memories'). I really can't believe that some today are in such a state of denial that they think that they can convince others to question the validity - even ~purpose~ - of science.
I can agree though that, for us 'layman folk', we have to have a certain degree of 'faith' when reading the conclusions of others (especially if we don't have time (or resources) to empirically recreate their experiments ourselves); but what would you rather have faith in: an organisation (network) whose pay-to-pray doctrine leads to no conclusive results, or a relatively transparent organisation (network) whose works have (consistently and continuously) resulted in the technology we are using today?
Stupid bitch who is prosecuting him doesn't have a clue what hacking is all about.
That is most likely true, but where she ~isn't~ stupid is in her understanding of what the ~jury~ will think when she utters the word "hacker". "Hacker" is a relatively new word whose definition remains vague to the ignorant - yet the ignorant are quick drop it into the "word used to describe something all-inclusive bad" category. To be a trial lawyer/prosecutor is to know what emotional strings and bind spots can be exploited in a judge/jury.
The code's printed in yellow toner - which isn't normally noticeable but becomes infuriatingly visible if you use these machines to print light coloured backgrounds - for example, a business card with a silver/light grey background tone.
...isn't getting back to you the whole point of a business card?
Addendum: when it comes to 'fun' category, I could care less if an author/actor/musician becomes a billionaire because of his 'entertainment value' - all that matters is his/her worth to ~me~. Yet when you throw market-manipulating corporations into the question (film industry, publishing houses, RIAA), I begin to hesitate: do all those taking a share of my contribution ~deserve~ what they are getting?
Hear hear. We're dealing with a new 'virtual distribution' market model here, but it seems that a) consumers are slow to adapt to it (namely in their 'value judgement' of the product they're buying) and b) it is facing a lot of opposition from the 'old market' heavyweights.
It used to be that we were willing to shell out tons of $$$ for a product we thought was 'magic', but those years of ignorance are well behind us - no longer can we be duped by a multi-million dollar ad campaign; it's the product quality that counts in the end - Vista is a great example of this. These days development costs have gone down, and it's becoming harder and harder to justify a high price for software - companies that still tried to do so through more coercive methods than simple market demand (Quark xPress asking a 'ransom-esque' price because of its hold over the late-90's printing industry; 'no alternative' profiteering (Adobe, but today even their prices are going down)) are either failing (quark did) or changing their tactics.
When I buy software I ask myself three questions: 1) Is it fun, 2) does it make my life easier, and 3) does it help me make more $$$ (and this could be grouped with question 2). All software without exception I want to try (without limitations) before I buy - and for questions 1 and 2, I have no problem paying a price for and app that a) is good and b) I know I'm going to spend a lot of time using. Question 3 is a bit more of a touchy issue - I'm willing to shell out even a lot for a software that allows me to create with twice the schwing in half the time (compared to my production standards until then) - but even this feeling of obligation fades when the 'stuff the product does' becomes the norm. The question still remains: if development costs money, and I like what the developers are developing and want them to continue, how much should I contribute, and, more importantly, how much do they ~need~ to continue developing? Answering this would simplify things greatly for the consumer's value judgement - and conscience.
Same here in France (and I'm Canadian, so I get it from both ends). If there ever was a law unjustly (and blindly) punishing the innocent, it's that one - I don't like the idea of my giving money to record companies whose crappy artists I don't even listen to every time I burn a DVD of photos for each publication I make. These RIAA guys are just assh*les, but they continue their antics only because we are allowing them to - in part, by buying music! And blank CD's/DVD's... ouch.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, did microsoft test for the wall-less server installation's resistance to badly-aimed pepper shot?
The Grinch isn't a Who; he's more of a what.
...an oddly pernacious door, better left open than shut.
Welcome to Level 2.
Rather, welcome to a new season!
So if the doctor's (clone) daughter marries the doctor (doctor), will the doctor and doctor daughter's (doctor) son do as the doctor does?
Oooooo! I can't wait! ZuneTv!
What he didn't predict was that, thanks to this 'disaster', we could make one big *$%&*$ blackbird pie.
I'm a bit puzzled at the Editor's choice of a word - I'm sure that if I bought and played the game, it would work in the same way as the 'real' one - and the game was ~copied~, not 'created to resemble' as the word counterfeit implies. Yet I do understand that many are tiring of the word 'pirate'...
No comment!
Laptops are the new spiral notebook - and some students even use laptops to film lectures for future reference. Just turn off WiFi and problem solved.
Laptops are the new notebook - and some students even film lectures for future reference. Just turn off Wifi and/or Web access - problem solved.
Laptops are the new notebook - some students even film lectures for future reference. Just turn off WiFi/web access!
How do we know about several men's 'memories' - left in writ? Because we can refer to them whenever we like (should we choose to, which you obviously don't), and can even trace them back to studies and experiments of their predecessors (acts and facts, not 'memories'). I really can't believe that some today are in such a state of denial that they think that they can convince others to question the validity - even ~purpose~ - of science.
I can agree though that, for us 'layman folk', we have to have a certain degree of 'faith' when reading the conclusions of others (especially if we don't have time (or resources) to empirically recreate their experiments ourselves); but what would you rather have faith in: an organisation (network) whose pay-to-pray doctrine leads to no conclusive results, or a relatively transparent organisation (network) whose works have (consistently and continuously) resulted in the technology we are using today?
That sounds pretty much like a deal with the Devil, where everything you owned now belongs to Her Satanic Majesty...
You're married, aren't you?
Stupid bitch who is prosecuting him doesn't have a clue what hacking is all about.
That is most likely true, but where she ~isn't~ stupid is in her understanding of what the ~jury~ will think when she utters the word "hacker". "Hacker" is a relatively new word whose definition remains vague to the ignorant - yet the ignorant are quick drop it into the "word used to describe something all-inclusive bad" category. To be a trial lawyer/prosecutor is to know what emotional strings and bind spots can be exploited in a judge/jury.
Nah, the guy probably has a black turtleneck fetish. And Steve Jobs likes 'em tight.
The code's printed in yellow toner - which isn't normally noticeable but becomes infuriatingly visible if you use these machines to print light coloured backgrounds - for example, a business card with a silver/light grey background tone.
...isn't getting back to you the whole point of a business card?
EFFing A!
Shoot it into space! Is it really so difficult and costly to do that?
Addendum: when it comes to 'fun' category, I could care less if an author/actor/musician becomes a billionaire because of his 'entertainment value' - all that matters is his/her worth to ~me~. Yet when you throw market-manipulating corporations into the question (film industry, publishing houses, RIAA), I begin to hesitate: do all those taking a share of my contribution ~deserve~ what they are getting?
Hear hear. We're dealing with a new 'virtual distribution' market model here, but it seems that a) consumers are slow to adapt to it (namely in their 'value judgement' of the product they're buying) and b) it is facing a lot of opposition from the 'old market' heavyweights.
It used to be that we were willing to shell out tons of $$$ for a product we thought was 'magic', but those years of ignorance are well behind us - no longer can we be duped by a multi-million dollar ad campaign; it's the product quality that counts in the end - Vista is a great example of this. These days development costs have gone down, and it's becoming harder and harder to justify a high price for software - companies that still tried to do so through more coercive methods than simple market demand (Quark xPress asking a 'ransom-esque' price because of its hold over the late-90's printing industry; 'no alternative' profiteering (Adobe, but today even their prices are going down)) are either failing (quark did) or changing their tactics.
When I buy software I ask myself three questions: 1) Is it fun, 2) does it make my life easier, and 3) does it help me make more $$$ (and this could be grouped with question 2). All software without exception I want to try (without limitations) before I buy - and for questions 1 and 2, I have no problem paying a price for and app that a) is good and b) I know I'm going to spend a lot of time using. Question 3 is a bit more of a touchy issue - I'm willing to shell out even a lot for a software that allows me to create with twice the schwing in half the time (compared to my production standards until then) - but even this feeling of obligation fades when the 'stuff the product does' becomes the norm. The question still remains: if development costs money, and I like what the developers are developing and want them to continue, how much should I contribute, and, more importantly, how much do they ~need~ to continue developing? Answering this would simplify things greatly for the consumer's value judgement - and conscience.
In a word: people. Not corporations.
Oh, and getting rid of that blatantly abusive 'a corporation is a person' law would help to make things ~much~ clearer-cut for us all.
Same here in France (and I'm Canadian, so I get it from both ends). If there ever was a law unjustly (and blindly) punishing the innocent, it's that one - I don't like the idea of my giving money to record companies whose crappy artists I don't even listen to every time I burn a DVD of photos for each publication I make. These RIAA guys are just assh*les, but they continue their antics only because we are allowing them to - in part, by buying music! And blank CD's/DVD's... ouch.
Egads! It's worse than I thought - until now I thought we were only living ~on~ a giant corporate turd!
Yes, and I get out of breath.
9.