He's prepared to provide the evidence - but he's offered to provide it to the presiding judge, and not to the attorney general. I'm not knowledgable about the US court system, but if it's anything like the Australian system, then it would be the court that requests the video, not the A.G (can someone clarify this?).
"I really can't see why journalists think they are some sort of fscking priesthood set above all other instituitions."
Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the absolute keystones of a democracy, without which we'll quickly lapse into totalitarianism.
"you are mostly talentless hacks anyway."
So what? are you trying to say that because there are some bad journalists, that the profession as a whole has no merit? That can be said about anything!
"A grand jury or a court can order you to produce damned near anything it wants. "
From the interview, it sounds like it's less about producing the video for the court, and more about putting fear into non-government-sanctioned journalists. Now, every story has at least two sides, and I think he is pretty silly for not even being willing to appear in court, but it sounds like the A.G. is needlessly throwing his weight around too - in an attempt to intimidate people who are saying things that the government doesn't like.
While what you say is true, your comment is still stupid, because it was a Republican-controlled congress that authorised the invasion. It seems doubtful that a Democrat-controlled congress would have done so. Are you trying to alleviate some guilt? Can people not take responsibility for their actions anymore?
Furthermore, while sexual exploitation (especially involving children) is terrible, awful, and shouldn't be condoned by any civilised society it is not the Greatest Evil In The World.
Imagine if a law was passed that said all houses must have glass walls and no curtains, because we want to find child molestors. You shouldn't mind if you've nothing to hide, right? If we start unravelling our society to catch the tiny minority of assholes - throwing away all the great things that our ancestors have faught for over the centuries - then we've wasted all that effort, and we _still_ wouldn't stop child porn.
I wish those dickheads would get a sense of perspective!
I hear you. Being proud of Linux, is being proud of something that's collectively owned by everyone. It's like being proud of a National park. Being proud of a Mac, is like bring proud of a company's skyscraper, or your wealthy neighbours back yard.
Having said that, if Macs got 25 - 30% market share, it'd make the IT-world a better place, would help Linux (because of more open standards) and would spur MS to make some half-decent software, and stop being such assholes. I definitely don't think that Macs are _ever_ going to destroy cheap commodity hardware.
I understand that Windows is a solid alternative to DOS , but a better interface and graphics is not going to make me switch. I want the same operating system my friends, parents and neighbours have. It may sound ignorant but it's not.
Change is inevetable. Sticking with a familiar brand-name won't mean avoiding change.
Also, the cost of international phone calls has declined markedly since 1925. Based on inflation, we should now be paying $500/min for international calls. Don't tell the telcos!
Similarly, the cost of motor cars has come down since the Model-T Ford - they should cost $1.5 million each (based on inflation - discounting better performance these days)
Or... perhaps technology and economics has some influence on the price of things too..
"MS isn't the only company that uses Anti-Competitive methods or tries to lock users into their product. ipods anyone?"
there's a big difference between DRM that's specific to a device (that's right - tracks from the ITMS are the _only_ lock-in to the ipod, which also plays mp3 and AAC - open formats), and software that results in lock-in on content that you create yourself.
I'm no fan of DRM or the ITMS, but the lock-in to the ipod is no worse than that of any other music player!
You make a valid point. As other posters have suggested, it's likely that they also want a consistent policy across the ITMS.
> I would rather understand WHY people do what they do
That, too, is a very valid point. I guess I was saying more along the lines of: don't believe platitudes when the speaker doesn't follow them up with similar actions.
I was about to abuse you and your specious arguement, but it's actually not a bad point.
However, most podcasts are not sold. The ones that are, do they have DRM?
Also, does the ITMS actually _host_ the podcasts? I don't think so - I think it just downloads from wherever the podcasts are - it's a search engine, if you will...
So, yeah.. I think your comment is irrelevant..;-)
Apple could _already_ sell some of their music without DRM - in fact they've been asked, and have refused (see previous/. story). I don't see why this is any different, except as an attempt to deflect the blame.
This is the same as with politicians: ignore what they say - it's usually bullshit. Watch what they do - that's how you judge them.
Seems to me it would be good if more people understood the ways that their gut reaction to fear is often incorrect. It would at least make it harder for politicians to manipulate the populace.
It was interesting how Schneider said "you can feel secure even if you're not" - maybe this is also known as herd-mentality..
The way I see it, this is exactly what they needed to do, as XP seemed like a bug-ridden hideous security and usability nightmare*. If they make Vista more stable and secure, then it will do a lot more for MS's street-cred than almost anything else.
Windows has never really been about innovation - the 3rd party apps do that. If it becomes more secure, we'll all be better off. It's (hopefully) gonna be more like Linux (minus the freedom/flexibility/no-DRM part, of course), and I personally think that's a Good Thing.
I won't be using it personally (nor did I use XP), but it'd be kind of nice if the huge number of computers in botnets was reduced somewhat...
While what you say is true, using electricity to heat your home is crazy, from an efficiency point of view.
Think about it this way: Burn something, get >80% efficiency (probably over 95%) burn something -> boil water -> turn turbine -> generate electricity -> transmit/transform electricity -> heat house All of these steps involve losses. The final efficiency is probably less than 15%.. Using natural gas, wood or oil for heating makes sound environmental sense.
Yes. Especially when they talk about the 'industrial strength of Unix' - they're either a paid representative, or have read too many Mac adverts....and I say this as a Mac owner.
Having said that, the Windows people were spouting the Microsoft lines too...
only the Linux-user was pure and untainted - a lesson for us all;-)
Robots probably won't destroy humankind, but they could allow us to be enslaved by other humans.
At the moment, for someone to be in a position of power, they need to convince other people of their merit (regardless of whether they're a despot, or an elected official).
Robots like these could allow wealthy people to subjugate others - private-army style.
It would also absolve the high-level commander for any atrocities as they could attribute it to "machine malfunction" - oh how I look forward to that new euphemism.
While I agree with your post, it would be possible for watermarks to be inserted into the movie. The player could then detect these, and refuse to play it.
Then you'd have to use VLC to play it;-)
however, if the watermark was detected at a lower level (maybe a post-Vista operating system with TPM, if MS ever makes one) then that could possibly prevent even VLC playing it (in Windows).
Slashdot Mirror
He's prepared to provide the evidence - but he's offered to provide it to the presiding judge, and not to the attorney general. I'm not knowledgable about the US court system, but if it's anything like the Australian system, then it would be the court that requests the video, not the A.G (can someone clarify this?).
"I really can't see why journalists think they are some sort of fscking priesthood set above all other instituitions."
Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the absolute keystones of a democracy, without which we'll quickly lapse into totalitarianism.
"you are mostly talentless hacks anyway."
So what? are you trying to say that because there are some bad journalists, that the profession as a whole has no merit? That can be said about anything!
"A grand jury or a court can order you to produce damned near anything it wants. "
From the interview, it sounds like it's less about producing the video for the court, and more about putting fear into non-government-sanctioned journalists. Now, every story has at least two sides, and I think he is pretty silly for not even being willing to appear in court, but it sounds like the A.G. is needlessly throwing his weight around too - in an attempt to intimidate people who are saying things that the government doesn't like.
I understand your frustration.. why didn't the GP use the GUI to install programs on Ubuntu? It's very easy and mature..
Maybe it's just astroturfing - using two usernames:
First username sets up the scenario:
"just type apt-get, etc"
Second username delivers the punchline:
"Windows and Mac are easier - Linux Sucks"
"...tell it to every Democrat..."
While what you say is true, your comment is still stupid, because it was a Republican-controlled congress that authorised the invasion. It seems doubtful that a Democrat-controlled congress would have done so.
Are you trying to alleviate some guilt? Can people not take responsibility for their actions anymore?
I agree with you 100%.
Furthermore, while sexual exploitation (especially involving children) is terrible, awful, and shouldn't be condoned by any civilised society it is not the Greatest Evil In The World.
Imagine if a law was passed that said all houses must have glass walls and no curtains, because we want to find child molestors. You shouldn't mind if you've nothing to hide, right?
If we start unravelling our society to catch the tiny minority of assholes - throwing away all the great things that our ancestors have faught for over the centuries - then we've wasted all that effort, and we _still_ wouldn't stop child porn.
I wish those dickheads would get a sense of perspective!
I hear you. Being proud of Linux, is being proud of something that's collectively owned by everyone. It's like being proud of a National park. Being proud of a Mac, is like bring proud of a company's skyscraper, or your wealthy neighbours back yard.
Having said that, if Macs got 25 - 30% market share, it'd make the IT-world a better place, would help Linux (because of more open standards) and would spur MS to make some half-decent software, and stop being such assholes. I definitely don't think that Macs are _ever_ going to destroy cheap commodity hardware.
circa 1994:
I understand that Windows is a solid alternative to DOS , but a better interface and graphics is not going to make me switch. I want the same operating system my friends, parents and neighbours have. It may sound ignorant but it's not.
Change is inevetable. Sticking with a familiar brand-name won't mean avoiding change.
Thanks for the info - but I don't think that can be right!
I'm pretty certain inflation has gone up about 10x since the 1970s, which would imply a much higher rate of inflation since 1908...
If one pedestrian in fifty had a couple of kilos of nitro-glicerine (sp?) in their backpack, no pedestrian would ever be hit again.
"OMG it's a pedestrian - look out!!!"
Also, the cost of international phone calls has declined markedly since 1925. Based on inflation, we should now be paying $500/min for international calls. Don't tell the telcos!
Similarly, the cost of motor cars has come down since the Model-T Ford - they should cost $1.5 million each (based on inflation - discounting better performance these days)
Or... perhaps technology and economics has some influence on the price of things too..
"MS isn't the only company that uses Anti-Competitive methods or tries to lock users into their product. ipods anyone?"
there's a big difference between DRM that's specific to a device (that's right - tracks from the ITMS are the _only_ lock-in to the ipod, which also plays mp3 and AAC - open formats), and software that results in lock-in on content that you create yourself.
I'm no fan of DRM or the ITMS, but the lock-in to the ipod is no worse than that of any other music player!
You make a valid point. As other posters have suggested, it's likely that they also want a consistent policy across the ITMS.
> I would rather understand WHY people do what they do
That, too, is a very valid point. I guess I was saying more along the lines of: don't believe platitudes when the speaker doesn't follow them up with similar actions.
Anyway, cheers!
> They do [podcasts]
I was about to abuse you and your specious arguement, but it's actually not a bad point.
However, most podcasts are not sold. The ones that are, do they have DRM?
Also, does the ITMS actually _host_ the podcasts? I don't think so - I think it just downloads from wherever the podcasts are - it's a search engine, if you will...
So, yeah.. I think your comment is irrelevant..
I'd like to believe him, but I don't.
/. story). I don't see why this is any different, except as an attempt to deflect the blame.
Apple could _already_ sell some of their music without DRM - in fact they've been asked, and have refused (see previous
This is the same as with politicians: ignore what they say - it's usually bullshit. Watch what they do - that's how you judge them.
"six months' free use of the system"
the question is: do they mean six months use of the system at no cost, or six months free reign on the system?
What's even more amazing is that you wrote two 'insightful/interesting' comments that have been modded 'funny'
Well, although I'd say I haven't used it, I wouldn't say I've never seen it. I've also seen and helped friends deal with its various quirks...
Seems to me it would be good if more people understood the ways that their gut reaction to fear is often incorrect. It would at least make it harder for politicians to manipulate the populace.
It was interesting how Schneider said "you can feel secure even if you're not" - maybe this is also known as herd-mentality..
The way I see it, this is exactly what they needed to do, as XP seemed like a bug-ridden hideous security and usability nightmare*. If they make Vista more stable and secure, then it will do a lot more for MS's street-cred than almost anything else.
;-)
Windows has never really been about innovation - the 3rd party apps do that. If it becomes more secure, we'll all be better off. It's (hopefully) gonna be more like Linux (minus the freedom/flexibility/no-DRM part, of course), and I personally think that's a Good Thing.
I won't be using it personally (nor did I use XP), but it'd be kind of nice if the huge number of computers in botnets was reduced somewhat...
*personal predjudice there..
While what you say is true, using electricity to heat your home is crazy, from an efficiency point of view.
Think about it this way:
Burn something, get >80% efficiency (probably over 95%)
burn something -> boil water -> turn turbine -> generate electricity -> transmit/transform electricity -> heat house
All of these steps involve losses. The final efficiency is probably less than 15%..
Using natural gas, wood or oil for heating makes sound environmental sense.
>> Does anybody else smell a shill?
Yes. Especially when they talk about the 'industrial strength of Unix' - they're either a paid representative, or have read too many Mac adverts.
Having said that, the Windows people were spouting the Microsoft lines too...
only the Linux-user was pure and untainted - a lesson for us all
Go and read about Ghandi, mate, and the methods he used to gain Indian independance from British colonialism.
Robots probably won't destroy humankind, but they could allow us to be enslaved by other humans.
At the moment, for someone to be in a position of power, they need to convince other people of their merit (regardless of whether they're a despot, or an elected official).
Robots like these could allow wealthy people to subjugate others - private-army style.
It would also absolve the high-level commander for any atrocities as they could attribute it to "machine malfunction" - oh how I look forward to that new euphemism.
While I agree with your post, it would be possible for watermarks to be inserted into the movie. The player could then detect these, and refuse to play it.
Then you'd have to use VLC to play it
however, if the watermark was detected at a lower level (maybe a post-Vista operating system with TPM, if MS ever makes one) then that could possibly prevent even VLC playing it (in Windows).
Then you'd have to use Linux