What if this started to happen on all the real blog sites?
Non-bloggers and everyone over the age of 16 (whoops, already said that!) would rejoice.
This, to me, shows a willingness of communications companies to censor. Hopefully, this will not ever occur.
Hah! What fairytopia did you grow up in? News flash: everyone censors to some degree. Do you think your ISP will let you host kiddie porn in the free web space you get with your connection? Did you think AOL doesn't monitor chat rooms? The type and degree of censorship depends on the companies involved, but every one of them has a line they won't cross (or allow you to cross).
Imagine if this happened to IM.
Since I run my own IM server, I'm reasonably confident I won't ever censor myself, since my activities will probably always be on this side of what limits I set for myself. Neat how that works, isn't it? Well, the only thing stopping you from running your own IM, web, and mail service is your willingness to learn how to do it. If you really want to fight censorship, then carve out your own little free zone and invite your friends to join in. Anything less is simply trusting a third party to act in ways that benefit you. They often will - they want your money or eyeballs, after all - but that's no guarantee that they'll do so tomorrow or the day after.
Re:Hello my future girlfriend?
on
Top 10 Web Fads
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I think that's this guy's brother Daniel (who sux at html).
The sarcastic implication being that it's bad news for SCO. Kind of like when an obnoxious player on the opposite team sprains an ankle: "aww, tough luck, buddy."
I don't really invest beyond my 401K and a few other small things, so I don't really understand what's going on with their share price. Why is it not much lower than it is? I understand the "unlimited upside, negligible downside" idea, but it seems like that upside is rapidly vanishing with no good news likely on the horizon.
Don't investors typically eventually say "ain't gonna happen" and walk away? Is there an obvious reason why this hasn't happened yet?
So, a typical computing center had a large set of parallel units running at a very low clockrate (roughly 4.1336*10^-7 Hz), but with an impressive number of instructions per cycle. Their floating point was OK, but integer performance was pretty good.
This sounds familiar. Was it IBM's first attempt at the Power architecture? Were the male supervisors the Mac Daddies? Was GCC 0.1 the Girl Computer Co-ordinator?
Re:Concentrate on decent font supp -- mod parent u
on
Xorg and Desktop Eyecandy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I really don't get it. Here's my/etc/fonts/local.conf (I just uncommented the parts it told me to uncomment):
Then, in KDE, I went to Control Center -> Appearance & Themes -> Fonts -> Use antialising: true, then Configure -> Use sub-pixel hinting: as appropriate and Hinting style: medium. Voila! Beautiful subpixel antialiased fonts on my Linux and FreeBSD, each with different LCD monitor models.
I'm not even sure if I actually needed to edit local.conf, but it's been ages since I set it up and I don't remember the exact reasons for it.
In other words, it sounds like you have problems with the way your desktop of choice is configured for AA fonts. Understand that other desktops handle the job quite gracefully and with good results.
s/games/sound/ and I'd swear I read that exact thing on an audiophile website once. You know - one of the ones that claims gold bits sound "warmer" than silver bits?
That got me to thinking about protecting her brand new laptop.
You have a naive daughter (who let her iPod get stolen) and you're worried about her laptop computer? You need to be worried about her other laptop unless you want some worse surprises a few months from now ("Him? That's going to be the father of my grandchild?!?").
Good luck, man.
Signed,
Father of two daughters approaching college faster than he wants to admit.
More broadly, you can't afford to be idealistic in this industry; you have to be practical.
You are 100% correct. Ideally, you could count on 100% of the population to use the same software that the government uses to send documents to them. In practice, though, they don't so it only makes sense to choose an open, documented format for data exchange.
Pragmatism wins over idealism any day. Of course, my take on "practical" seems to be a bit different than yours.
2. The Supreme Court has also managed to further protect the bacon by making it so that cops can't be sued based on how poorly they enforce, or fail to protect people with restraining orders.
It's my understanding that the police have never been legally obligated to enforce the law. Would you really want them to have to pull over and ticket every driver doing 2 over?
3. Cable companies no longer have to share their lines.
If they paid for them, good! What's the incentive to create societal infrastructure if the government can take its use away from you? You later mention your opposition to the Eminent Domain ruling (incidentally, I agree with you there), but at least the government is required to compensate landowners that they evict. How can you be against them forcibly removing property from an individual's control, yet be for them forcibly removing property from a company's? Unless, of course, you neglected to mention that you're also for the government compensating the cable companies for the loss of income they'd suffer - but I somewhat doubt that.
Step one of that formula implies possession of music media to rip. Since the most common method of such possession is by buying it (cue Slashbot who swears that they only borrow from friends or the library), I think Apple could strongly claim that they're only encouraging Fair Use of their customers' own music collections.
In other words, "download-mix-burn" - bad. "Rip-mix-burn" - good. At least in the eyes of Apple's legal department, I'm sure.
Personally, I say hooray for the cable companies. They get to keep control of their equipment and the users who are utilizing it.
I don't know a lot about the subject, so please enlighten me if you do. I know that we, the taxpayers, basically paid for phone lines to be run to each house (regardless of how SBC et al stamp their little feet and scream "my copper! Mine!"). Is it common for taxpayers to have subsidized cable rollouts, or were they typically paid for by the cable companies and/or their customers?
The answer to that question completely governs my eventual opinion on the subject. If they bought and paid for their own network, then more power to 'em. If I paid for it, though, I expect to have some say in how they allow other companies to access it.
How does quietly proclaiming their support and then dropping it when it really matters make them your ally? What possibly help does that give your position?
At least the Republicans are consistently against you, and not only against you when people are watching.
It was good when they originally supported the legislation. Although I disliked it for various reasons, I congratulated them for taking a seemingly well defended stance on a human interest issue.
It was also OK when they changed their minds. Reassessing your position and deciding that a given battle isn't your place is commendable, and I could appreciate that.
Now, though, they just plain suck. "Really, folks, even though it's too late to get this one bill passed, we'll sure lobby for the next one that comes along! Unless we don't! But never mind that; for now we can say that you have our full support without facing any of the consequences of doing so!"
What a horridly cynical, insulting position to take. Were I gay, I think I'd be far more furious at this latest flip-flop than at their earlier decision not to support it. At worst, that move just looked cowardly. This one appears flat-out manipulative.
I appreciate the fact that we now have enough powerful rights organizations that you can reasonably hand-select the ones that defend the rights most important to you. The EFF covers the free speech cases that I support, and the NRA fights for the amendment that the ACLU hasn't heard of. I'm a proud member of both, and am reasonably sure that neither will take positions that I personally oppose.
I suppose the ACLU had its place back in the day, but I much prefer the Unix-style "each tool does one thing" approach of the EFF and NRA.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-bloggers and everyone over the age of 16 (whoops, already said that!) would rejoice.
This, to me, shows a willingness of communications companies to censor. Hopefully, this will not ever occur.
Hah! What fairytopia did you grow up in? News flash: everyone censors to some degree. Do you think your ISP will let you host kiddie porn in the free web space you get with your connection? Did you think AOL doesn't monitor chat rooms? The type and degree of censorship depends on the companies involved, but every one of them has a line they won't cross (or allow you to cross).
Imagine if this happened to IM.
Since I run my own IM server, I'm reasonably confident I won't ever censor myself, since my activities will probably always be on this side of what limits I set for myself. Neat how that works, isn't it? Well, the only thing stopping you from running your own IM, web, and mail service is your willingness to learn how to do it. If you really want to fight censorship, then carve out your own little free zone and invite your friends to join in. Anything less is simply trusting a third party to act in ways that benefit you. They often will - they want your money or eyeballs, after all - but that's no guarantee that they'll do so tomorrow or the day after.
I think that's this guy's brother Daniel (who sux at html).
The sarcastic implication being that it's bad news for SCO. Kind of like when an obnoxious player on the opposite team sprains an ankle: "aww, tough luck, buddy."
Don't investors typically eventually say "ain't gonna happen" and walk away? Is there an obvious reason why this hasn't happened yet?
This sounds familiar. Was it IBM's first attempt at the Power architecture? Were the male supervisors the Mac Daddies? Was GCC 0.1 the Girl Computer Co-ordinator?
Then, in KDE, I went to Control Center -> Appearance & Themes -> Fonts -> Use antialising: true, then Configure -> Use sub-pixel hinting: as appropriate and Hinting style: medium. Voila! Beautiful subpixel antialiased fonts on my Linux and FreeBSD, each with different LCD monitor models.
I'm not even sure if I actually needed to edit local.conf, but it's been ages since I set it up and I don't remember the exact reasons for it.
In other words, it sounds like you have problems with the way your desktop of choice is configured for AA fonts. Understand that other desktops handle the job quite gracefully and with good results.
s/games/sound/ and I'd swear I read that exact thing on an audiophile website once. You know - one of the ones that claims gold bits sound "warmer" than silver bits?
You have a naive daughter (who let her iPod get stolen) and you're worried about her laptop computer? You need to be worried about her other laptop unless you want some worse surprises a few months from now ("Him? That's going to be the father of my grandchild?!?").
Good luck, man.
Signed,
Father of two daughters approaching college faster than he wants to admit.
Thanks. That's the information I was missing before I could form a personal opinion on the case.
You are 100% correct. Ideally, you could count on 100% of the population to use the same software that the government uses to send documents to them. In practice, though, they don't so it only makes sense to choose an open, documented format for data exchange.
Pragmatism wins over idealism any day. Of course, my take on "practical" seems to be a bit different than yours.
It's my understanding that the police have never been legally obligated to enforce the law. Would you really want them to have to pull over and ticket every driver doing 2 over?
3. Cable companies no longer have to share their lines.
If they paid for them, good! What's the incentive to create societal infrastructure if the government can take its use away from you? You later mention your opposition to the Eminent Domain ruling (incidentally, I agree with you there), but at least the government is required to compensate landowners that they evict. How can you be against them forcibly removing property from an individual's control, yet be for them forcibly removing property from a company's? Unless, of course, you neglected to mention that you're also for the government compensating the cable companies for the loss of income they'd suffer - but I somewhat doubt that.
Step one of that formula implies possession of music media to rip. Since the most common method of such possession is by buying it (cue Slashbot who swears that they only borrow from friends or the library), I think Apple could strongly claim that they're only encouraging Fair Use of their customers' own music collections.
In other words, "download-mix-burn" - bad. "Rip-mix-burn" - good. At least in the eyes of Apple's legal department, I'm sure.
You meet the damnedest people on Slashdot, I tell ya.
I don't know a lot about the subject, so please enlighten me if you do. I know that we, the taxpayers, basically paid for phone lines to be run to each house (regardless of how SBC et al stamp their little feet and scream "my copper! Mine!"). Is it common for taxpayers to have subsidized cable rollouts, or were they typically paid for by the cable companies and/or their customers?
The answer to that question completely governs my eventual opinion on the subject. If they bought and paid for their own network, then more power to 'em. If I paid for it, though, I expect to have some say in how they allow other companies to access it.
Anybody know how this works out?
meant "go smoke out and see the nice cartoon with the pretty colors".
At least the Republicans are consistently against you, and not only against you when people are watching.
It was also OK when they changed their minds. Reassessing your position and deciding that a given battle isn't your place is commendable, and I could appreciate that.
Now, though, they just plain suck. "Really, folks, even though it's too late to get this one bill passed, we'll sure lobby for the next one that comes along! Unless we don't! But never mind that; for now we can say that you have our full support without facing any of the consequences of doing so!"
What a horridly cynical, insulting position to take. Were I gay, I think I'd be far more furious at this latest flip-flop than at their earlier decision not to support it. At worst, that move just looked cowardly. This one appears flat-out manipulative.
I suppose the ACLU had its place back in the day, but I much prefer the Unix-style "each tool does one thing" approach of the EFF and NRA.
Not if you have the proper equipment.