That's why you buy a PowerMac instead of the iMac. You can stick any kind of monitor you want to it. My work PowerMac G4 has three CRTs and one LCD connected to it. I have 4 Radeon cards in it to run them. Mac has always had great multimonitor support.
Yes, you should know about what medicines you are taking. You should make an informed decision on whether or not that medicine is the best thing for your circumstances. But the blanket statement you made was, well, silly.
I think you should re-read what I said before making blanket statements about my comments. I said to "go for it" if you wanted to take a medicine that scientists are clueless about. However, I will avoid it. So I don't see how it is silly for me to tell you to make your own decisions and use the drug if you want but I will not be using it. Seems to be a pretty darn reasonable statement.
Here is the statement:
If you want to take a drug that no one knows how it works, go for it. However, I will not be taking a drug that scientists are clueless about.
...how the PC industry is going to take Apple's styling, innovations and designs and incorporate them into Windows hardware. I guess its better late than never...
The fact of the matter is, nobody knows exactly why we sleep, what we need it for, or why some people have sleeping problems (narcolepsy and insomnia). Expecting to know why a drug works when you don't know why the symptoms exist is hopeless. At best you can hope that finding a drug that treats the symptoms will let you figure them both out.
That is why I said it was fine if you want to take it but I will not. Reread what I said. I never said "DON'T TAKE PROVIGIL!". I said:
If you want to take a drug that no one knows how it works, go for it. However, I will not be taking a drug that scientists are clueless about.
Seems that several people only read the last sentence and not the first.
I don't take any drugs for medicinal reasons outside of a multivitamin everyday. I have been blessed with practically a disease and injury free life. My father is a doctor and I have realized that if you stay away from doctor's offices, you stay healthier. All the sick people hang out there.
From the article: Provigil was developed in France in the 1970s. Although no one is sure how it works, animal studies show that the medication--unlike other drugs that induce wakefulness--doesn't seem to dramatically increase levels of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with arousal and alertness.
If you want to take a drug that no one knows how it works, go for it. However, I will not be taking a drug that scientists are clueless about.
The best treatment for sleepiness is SLEEPING!!! If you are engaging in an activity that is depriving you of sleep, STOP!!! There is a reason you get sleepy. Your body and mind needs to rest and recharge and sleepiness is the signal to do so. Medical test after medical test has shown that people that deprive themselves of sleep go insane and lose their ability to perform even the easiest of tasks. That is why sleep deprivation is used so often as a torture device to break down subjects, so they will spill the proverbial beans.
I think having a pr0n domain for perverts is great. No problem with that and should have been done years ago. Go for it! Think ass.prn will be owned by Bayer for trademark reasons?
However, who is going to determine whose hate speech will be required to use the ".prn" domain? Hate is not absolute, it is very subjective to the observer and comes and goes with societal fashion. Personally, I think "Hate Speech" deserves the most protection possible and should not be regulated by Government. Its every American's right not to like people for irrational reasons and be able to shout it at the top of their lungs. I like it when I hear hate speech because it makes it easier to determine the folks I want to avoid.
This latest version - version 5.1.4 - resolves all potential security vulnerabilities in previous versions of Internet Explorer 5. This includes vulnerabilities that might have caused Internet Explorer to stop responding or caused a memory problem that compromised the security of the computer.
However, I rechecked the back button bug that Mac OS X users experience where minesweeper will not launch on the test pages. Mac OS X IE v5.1.4 does not resolve the user experience issue for Mac users.
Damn it! I went to the test page and tried all the links with the back button. Not one of them worked. Not a one. There is a bug in the bug when it comes to Mac OS X and Internet Explorer. Once again as a Mac user, I am getting deprived of the same experience that Windows users get with Internet Explorer.
If I were the Author's Guild, I would shut up ASAP. The only reason I read today is due to Amazon dot bomb. The ease of ordering books online beats finding a bookstore and dealing with the pretentious, egghead twits that work in the store. I never bought a book before Amazon that wasn't required for a school course. Now with Amazon, I pour through at least 12 to 18 books a year. Up from zilch before Amazon came around. I am sure I am not the only one that has gained a love for reading from online bookstores.
The movie is using Times Square as a prop in the movie. Instead of the fictional Gotham City's town square, we get the real New York City landmark, Times Square, being presented in the movie as "present day". A tangible, real thing. Nothing of fantasy.
SONY should be allowed to disagree with content portrayed on their property. Its their property and the message presented on it reflects upon them. Think of parallels.
My made-up example?
What about a Julia Roberts, tear jerking movie that pits her as a courageous pro-choice activist against an evil cabal of extreme right-wing, slack jawed, anti-choice, church going, white men. As a part of the movie, Roberts attends a church of open minded, pro-choice parishioners...most likely Lutherans. Since the civil rights crusading producer wants to really stick it to the closed minded, white men and their abused, subservient wives in our society and make a real deep, societal impact on the minds of uniformed Americans, he CGIs the church sign of a real, mean, anti-choice, anti-gay, born-again Christian church in Mississippi, to be this warm, fuzzy, cuddly, pro-choice, Julia Roberts kind of church with a feminine Reverend. So all establishment shots of the Julia Roberts kind of church in the movie feature this real anti-choice church but with the Hollywood magic sign. The church was filmed on the road legally. It is a landmark in the town as most churches are. Most of the viewers of the film would never know what was on the sign before seeing the movie as they do not live near the sign, but the audience local to the landmark would. The sign is nothing more than the advertising of religious faith -- a somewhat commercial activity, as money is exchanged between parishioner and church and visa-versa from time to time.
Think the church would have a right to complain by having their sign's content in the blockbuster Julia Roberts film being altered to reflect a message with which they disagree? I would think so. And you are more likely to know about the advertising in Times Square than would you this church in Mississippi. Hate to stick up for a multinational corporation but they do have a right to have messages on their property correctly reflect their desires. It is not up to you and I to decide for SONY what their message is.
Offtopic: Anyone hear that Standard Oil of New York conspiracy before?
Disclaimer: I live in NYC and I don't like Julia Roberts tear jerking movies but I am forced to watch them. I will back any legislation on Digital Rights Management that contains a rider that will make Oxygen, Lifetime, and Women's Entertainment (We) illegal to broadcast within the United States.
Best Buy could have a huge impact on the future format of music player hardware as well as software."
I was going to buy some CDs today. I usually shop at Best Buy. Now I wouldn't be going to Best Buy even if they have the best price. I want value for my purchasing dollar. Limiting my future choices is not value. I didn't buy an iPod to have Best Buy dictate how I use it in the future.
Don't let companies pull this garbage. Don't buy from them. Best Buy just screwed themselves permanently with me. It will be very hard for them to dictate to customers if they don't have any.
he now has a 'honeypot' like system where a unique email address that isn't directly visible on the site but still may be harvested by a spam bot. Any server that sends email to that address is automatically added to
This is the same method I have been using for a while. I have an e-mail account called "cannedham" that I had posted on several web sites as a mailto: anchor on a 1x1 pixel graphic. Any e-mail sent to that address updates my Postfix header_checks file to protect the rest of my accounts. It works like a charm.
...to get a Mac. If you are too cheap, convert your x86 box to BSD because friends don't let friend use Linux.:P
Any Open Source/Linux/BSD Companies doing well?
on
Lineo near Death
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is a tendency in news coverage to hype the bad and forget the good. That holds true with Slashdot -- with a parent like VA/Whatever-they-are-calling-themselves-today how could you not?
Is there anyone out there in the OpenSource Business World that is doing it right, making a profit and kicking corporate butt? The Mandrake Club sounds like a glimmer of hope. It would be interesting to read of stories where code freedom equals profits.
In a nutshell, some have argued (rationally, not just talking out their ass) that 'cp' and 'cat' qualify. Not to mention tar, dump, and possibly i/o redirection
I guess if they use that logic, my eyeballs and hands would qualify! You are right if that is the truth, it is scary.
Indeed, that is how I read it. This would be because if you were legally allowed to remove the copy protection technology from your device, then you could simply do so and begin making copies. They have to do this or the entire law is laughably meaningless.
Interesting. I read it the other way due to the Personal Use exemption stated in the Bill that allowed for duplication for backup purposes. That is the problem with the US Congress, too damn difficult to understand anything they write.
As long as the OS allows block-by-block access to the hard drive, how could the OS prevent you from reading "commercial media" stored there? From what I can tell, the hard drive's logic would have to be modified to handle this itself. Might as well bundle the whole filesystem logic on its firmware I guess.
That is a good point. I was thinking more in the line of CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes and floppies.
I find it amusing that the (2) PERSONAL USE COPIES section you pasted only includes programming that is sent, basically, from TV and radio stations - not over the Internet. Could this mean that Internet-distributed software "delivered" to the "home" will not be exempted?
This makes me wonder if the law is more focused at "entertainment" copyright protection than "software" copyright protection. So "Lord of the Rings" would be protected by this bill and not "Norton Anti-virus".
knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce
I read this to mean that you could not modify the item and offer it for sale. Government speak is confusing. Are you reading it to mean that if you buy something, you cannot modify it?
Did you read the bill? It does not say this. All it says that it will be illegal to create a product that reads the secure content without protecting the protection. You are still free to build devices that do not read secure, copyrighted content or write it.
From the bill:
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
Im not saying the bill is golden but the misrepresentation of what is inside it is really weaking the arguments. I would still be free to use BSD to write the Great American Copyrighted Novel without being forced to use DRM.
If you don't want to use products with DRM in them, don't support the companies that use it.
The law targets all digital devices. (Does this mean that the locks in hotel doors have to have officially approved DRM technology since they are networked?)
I have read the bill and can find no reference to "all digital devices" but I do for "digital media that uses the protection". All I can find are devices that can read the media that is being protected. If you want to avoid this problem, develop a system that has no capability to read the media that is protected. Not impossible. Create an entire open source system that avoids reading commercial media.
This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers)
Sounds like the bill has an exemption for personal use. i.e., hobbiest use:
(1) LIMITATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS. -- In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122 (j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cables system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
If you are going to argue against the bill, argue with some clarity or you will be dismissed by the jerks in Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you buy a PowerMac instead of the iMac. You can stick any kind of monitor you want to it. My work PowerMac G4 has three CRTs and one LCD connected to it. I have 4 Radeon cards in it to run them. Mac has always had great multimonitor support.
I think you should re-read what I said before making blanket statements about my comments. I said to "go for it" if you wanted to take a medicine that scientists are clueless about. However, I will avoid it. So I don't see how it is silly for me to tell you to make your own decisions and use the drug if you want but I will not be using it. Seems to be a pretty darn reasonable statement.
Here is the statement:
If you want to take a drug that no one knows how it works, go for it. However, I will not be taking a drug that scientists are clueless about.
...how the PC industry is going to take Apple's styling, innovations and designs and incorporate them into Windows hardware. I guess its better late than never...
That is why I said it was fine if you want to take it but I will not. Reread what I said. I never said "DON'T TAKE PROVIGIL!". I said:
If you want to take a drug that no one knows how it works, go for it. However, I will not be taking a drug that scientists are clueless about.
Seems that several people only read the last sentence and not the first.
I don't take any drugs for medicinal reasons outside of a multivitamin everyday. I have been blessed with practically a disease and injury free life. My father is a doctor and I have realized that if you stay away from doctor's offices, you stay healthier. All the sick people hang out there.
I am a master of the obvious. It is unfortunate that many in our society are oblivious to the obvious. Thus the need for Lawyers.
Provigil was developed in France in the 1970s. Although no one is sure how it works, animal studies show that the medication--unlike other drugs that induce wakefulness--doesn't seem to dramatically increase levels of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with arousal and alertness.
If you want to take a drug that no one knows how it works, go for it. However, I will not be taking a drug that scientists are clueless about.
The best treatment for sleepiness is SLEEPING!!! If you are engaging in an activity that is depriving you of sleep, STOP!!! There is a reason you get sleepy. Your body and mind needs to rest and recharge and sleepiness is the signal to do so. Medical test after medical test has shown that people that deprive themselves of sleep go insane and lose their ability to perform even the easiest of tasks. That is why sleep deprivation is used so often as a torture device to break down subjects, so they will spill the proverbial beans.
However, who is going to determine whose hate speech will be required to use the ".prn" domain? Hate is not absolute, it is very subjective to the observer and comes and goes with societal fashion. Personally, I think "Hate Speech" deserves the most protection possible and should not be regulated by Government. Its every American's right not to like people for irrational reasons and be able to shout it at the top of their lungs. I like it when I hear hate speech because it makes it easier to determine the folks I want to avoid.
Bless you! Thanks for thinking about us Mac users!
This latest version - version 5.1.4 - resolves all potential security vulnerabilities in previous versions of Internet Explorer 5. This includes vulnerabilities that might have caused Internet Explorer to stop responding or caused a memory problem that compromised the security of the computer.
However, I rechecked the back button bug that Mac OS X users experience where minesweeper will not launch on the test pages. Mac OS X IE v5.1.4 does not resolve the user experience issue for Mac users.
Damn it! I went to the test page and tried all the links with the back button. Not one of them worked. Not a one. There is a bug in the bug when it comes to Mac OS X and Internet Explorer. Once again as a Mac user, I am getting deprived of the same experience that Windows users get with Internet Explorer.
...Duh!
If I were the Author's Guild, I would shut up ASAP. The only reason I read today is due to Amazon dot bomb. The ease of ordering books online beats finding a bookstore and dealing with the pretentious, egghead twits that work in the store. I never bought a book before Amazon that wasn't required for a school course. Now with Amazon, I pour through at least 12 to 18 books a year. Up from zilch before Amazon came around. I am sure I am not the only one that has gained a love for reading from online bookstores.
SONY should be allowed to disagree with content portrayed on their property. Its their property and the message presented on it reflects upon them. Think of parallels.
My made-up example?
What about a Julia Roberts, tear jerking movie that pits her as a courageous pro-choice activist against an evil cabal of extreme right-wing, slack jawed, anti-choice, church going, white men. As a part of the movie, Roberts attends a church of open minded, pro-choice parishioners...most likely Lutherans. Since the civil rights crusading producer wants to really stick it to the closed minded, white men and their abused, subservient wives in our society and make a real deep, societal impact on the minds of uniformed Americans, he CGIs the church sign of a real, mean, anti-choice, anti-gay, born-again Christian church in Mississippi, to be this warm, fuzzy, cuddly, pro-choice, Julia Roberts kind of church with a feminine Reverend. So all establishment shots of the Julia Roberts kind of church in the movie feature this real anti-choice church but with the Hollywood magic sign. The church was filmed on the road legally. It is a landmark in the town as most churches are. Most of the viewers of the film would never know what was on the sign before seeing the movie as they do not live near the sign, but the audience local to the landmark would. The sign is nothing more than the advertising of religious faith -- a somewhat commercial activity, as money is exchanged between parishioner and church and visa-versa from time to time.
Think the church would have a right to complain by having their sign's content in the blockbuster Julia Roberts film being altered to reflect a message with which they disagree? I would think so. And you are more likely to know about the advertising in Times Square than would you this church in Mississippi. Hate to stick up for a multinational corporation but they do have a right to have messages on their property correctly reflect their desires. It is not up to you and I to decide for SONY what their message is.
Offtopic: Anyone hear that Standard Oil of New York conspiracy before?
Disclaimer: I live in NYC and I don't like Julia Roberts tear jerking movies but I am forced to watch them. I will back any legislation on Digital Rights Management that contains a rider that will make Oxygen, Lifetime, and Women's Entertainment (We) illegal to broadcast within the United States.
I was going to buy some CDs today. I usually shop at Best Buy. Now I wouldn't be going to Best Buy even if they have the best price. I want value for my purchasing dollar. Limiting my future choices is not value. I didn't buy an iPod to have Best Buy dictate how I use it in the future.
Don't let companies pull this garbage. Don't buy from them. Best Buy just screwed themselves permanently with me. It will be very hard for them to dictate to customers if they don't have any.
This is the same method I have been using for a while. I have an e-mail account called "cannedham" that I had posted on several web sites as a mailto: anchor on a 1x1 pixel graphic. Any e-mail sent to that address updates my Postfix header_checks file to protect the rest of my accounts. It works like a charm.
...to get a Mac. If you are too cheap, convert your x86 box to BSD because friends don't let friend use Linux. :P
Is there anyone out there in the OpenSource Business World that is doing it right, making a profit and kicking corporate butt? The Mandrake Club sounds like a glimmer of hope. It would be interesting to read of stories where code freedom equals profits.
I would rather own goatse.cx instead. Imagine the number of hits from losers you would get!
I guess if they use that logic, my eyeballs and hands would qualify! You are right if that is the truth, it is scary.
Interesting. I read it the other way due to the Personal Use exemption stated in the Bill that allowed for duplication for backup purposes. That is the problem with the US Congress, too damn difficult to understand anything they write.
That is a good point. I was thinking more in the line of CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes and floppies.
I find it amusing that the (2) PERSONAL USE COPIES section you pasted only includes programming that is sent, basically, from TV and radio stations - not over the Internet. Could this mean that Internet-distributed software "delivered" to the "home" will not be exempted?
This makes me wonder if the law is more focused at "entertainment" copyright protection than "software" copyright protection. So "Lord of the Rings" would be protected by this bill and not "Norton Anti-virus".
I read this to mean that you could not modify the item and offer it for sale. Government speak is confusing. Are you reading it to mean that if you buy something, you cannot modify it?
From the bill:
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
Im not saying the bill is golden but the misrepresentation of what is inside it is really weaking the arguments. I would still be free to use BSD to write the Great American Copyrighted Novel without being forced to use DRM.
If you don't want to use products with DRM in them, don't support the companies that use it.
I have read the bill and can find no reference to "all digital devices" but I do for "digital media that uses the protection". All I can find are devices that can read the media that is being protected. If you want to avoid this problem, develop a system that has no capability to read the media that is protected. Not impossible. Create an entire open source system that avoids reading commercial media.
This would KILL hobbiest efforts (I learned by building computers)
Sounds like the bill has an exemption for personal use. i.e., hobbiest use:
(1) LIMITATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS. -- In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122 (j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cables system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
If you are going to argue against the bill, argue with some clarity or you will be dismissed by the jerks in Congress.