Great, so the fraction of a percent of Slashdot readers who actually RTFA will know about it!:-P At least if it was in the summary the 3 or 4% of Slashdot readers who RTFS would know about it.
Why is there no mention of them trying to gag PJ and Groklaw, considering she has covered the SCO case more than the other 3 combined and then multiplied by 100?
No, he didn't make it sound like sharing code is bad. He simply pointed out a misleading headline, which it is (not that you can expect otherwise from Slashdot....I wish the editors would RTFAs).
Read the article...the title is blatantly false. No surprise there, considering Zonk posted this. Of all people, you would think he would read the article.
Seriously, I would love to work for Slashdot. He apparently hates his job, considering the mediocre work he does.
The problem is when you get the majority spouting nonsense while acting like they know what they are talking about. I've seen that happen numerous times, and I don't even bother correcting at that point because it seems like a lost cause. One culprit is people who post on SCO articles. I still see Slashdot posters who think it's a patent case, or who don't know the difference between Caldera and SCO.
That's the example that came to mind right away. I could name some more if I thought about it for a minute.
And it's the editor's responsibility to ensure its accuracy. Zonk just chooses to not bother to do that. I still suspect he's a monkey, or one of those flamingo-head things from the Simpsons that just hits "accept" every few minutes. Naw...maybe not, the flamingo-head would probably do a better job.
Why oh why can't Slashdot just fire Zonk? He makes reading Slashdot on the weekends painful. I've seen plenty of messed up summaries, but Zonk's screwups are so blatant that you almost feel like tracking him down just to smack him in the head. Ugh....
RTFA and you shall discover the answer to your question. Is it really too much to ask?
Slashdot should have 2 conversations for every article. One for people who RTFA, one for those who don't. I'd have to sort through less garbage when reading Slashdot.
Apple could care less where people get their media, as long as they buy their hardware. Apple breaks even on the iTunes store....it's simply there to push iPods and AppleTVs (and iPhones soon).
There's always handbrake. Not exactly legal per se, but if the MPAA really wants to drive away customers, they'll sue people for ripping legally purchased media for the sole purpose of convenience.
Ummm, this contract is entered into between the CSS Group (whatever their name is) and device manufacturers or software player distributors, NOT between users and the CSS Group. I've never seen a license agreement on a DVD before.
Everybody knows to do this? How many non-technical people do you know exactly? I say this for 2 reasons:
1) I have yet to meet a non-geek that has an adblocker installed (excluding the few people who's computer I set up for them)
2) Unless Doubleclick has magic money-growing trees, clearly not everybody knows to block them, considering they are still raking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Don't be too upset. I know you must be embarrassed that it took you 9 years (how old Google is) to figure out that "Don't be evil" was marketing speak and that Google's #1 concern is profits, not whether a bunch of nerds on Slashdot see them as evil or not. There is a reason their unofficial company motto was made so incredibly vague and subjective in the first place.
Considering the sheer number of search results Google processes, the amount of money they make and how they are one of the most visited sites on the internet, I wouldn't exactly call web searchers a "Small Demographic".
Thanks captain obvious, I had no idea Google was a data-mining company that wants all of our data. All this time I thought they gave these things away to "not be evil". (Sarcastic btw).
Exactly. Doubleclick's SEO/SEM arm is a small fraction of the total company. Google could forgo the profits from it and turn it into exactly what you said (possibly even integrating it into webmaster tools and giving it away) without harming the objectivity of their results one bit.
The second Doubleclick/Performics, after the aquisition is completed, starts encouraging people to SPAM Google's index, then there's a problem.
I somehow don't see spending $3.1 Billion for a huge company like Doubleclick just to get a small portion of said company is very wise (or a plausible explanation of the aquisition either) when Google could have simply snapped up an independant SEO/SEM firm for a fraction of the cost. So, from my point of view and using common sense, Google didn't buy Doubleclick for this reason. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I'm sure C|Net can afford the bandwidth for this article. No reason to rip-off their article. The whole reason companies publish stuff for free is because ads help pay for it.
Yes, awesome theatre quality!! I get to hear random cell phones ringing, kids (and some adults) talking, occasional people fighting, my shoes fused to the floor by fermenting drinks, etc etc.
Oh, and let's not forget not being able to go to the bathroom for the entire movie without missing some of it.
I'd take a 42" LCD TV over the theatre any day of the week.
Oh, and btw, there's a reason the front 3 rows of the theatre are rarely taken. The reason for that is because when you have a screen that huge, you don't want to be sitting close to it. So when you're forced to sit close to a screen (say due to the size constraints of....your living room for instance) you tend to want a smaller screen (let's say between 32 and 52 inches for the sake of argument).
And last but not least, I don't have to pay $7 or $8 for a bag of popcorn at home. I can pop it myself (and have it taste better than the crap you get at the theatre) for a fraction of the cost.
Not to say that you shouldn't enjoy the theatre. But many people would hardly call the theatre "quality".
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't want to wear out the 0 key on my keyboard :-P
I was joking....hence the ridiculous percentages. You may relax and take your meds now :-)
Great, so the fraction of a percent of Slashdot readers who actually RTFA will know about it! :-P At least if it was in the summary the 3 or 4% of Slashdot readers who RTFS would know about it.
Why is there no mention of them trying to gag PJ and Groklaw, considering she has covered the SCO case more than the other 3 combined and then multiplied by 100?
1 9571717
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070428
No, he didn't make it sound like sharing code is bad. He simply pointed out a misleading headline, which it is (not that you can expect otherwise from Slashdot....I wish the editors would RTFAs).
RTFA, or else TFS.
Read the article...the title is blatantly false. No surprise there, considering Zonk posted this. Of all people, you would think he would read the article.
Seriously, I would love to work for Slashdot. He apparently hates his job, considering the mediocre work he does.
The problem is when you get the majority spouting nonsense while acting like they know what they are talking about. I've seen that happen numerous times, and I don't even bother correcting at that point because it seems like a lost cause. One culprit is people who post on SCO articles. I still see Slashdot posters who think it's a patent case, or who don't know the difference between Caldera and SCO.
That's the example that came to mind right away. I could name some more if I thought about it for a minute.
And it's the editor's responsibility to ensure its accuracy. Zonk just chooses to not bother to do that. I still suspect he's a monkey, or one of those flamingo-head things from the Simpsons that just hits "accept" every few minutes. Naw...maybe not, the flamingo-head would probably do a better job.
Why oh why can't Slashdot just fire Zonk? He makes reading Slashdot on the weekends painful. I've seen plenty of messed up summaries, but Zonk's screwups are so blatant that you almost feel like tracking him down just to smack him in the head. Ugh....
RTFA and you shall discover the answer to your question. Is it really too much to ask?
Slashdot should have 2 conversations for every article. One for people who RTFA, one for those who don't. I'd have to sort through less garbage when reading Slashdot.
Ummm, as far as I'm aware you're completely and utterly wrong. Could you please point out the section in the DMCA you speak of.
Oh, and DVD Shrink is perfectly capable of decrypting CSS on its own. Have you ever actually used DVD Shrink?
Apple could care less where people get their media, as long as they buy their hardware. Apple breaks even on the iTunes store....it's simply there to push iPods and AppleTVs (and iPhones soon).
There's always handbrake. Not exactly legal per se, but if the MPAA really wants to drive away customers, they'll sue people for ripping legally purchased media for the sole purpose of convenience.
*cough* *clears throat* *cough*
If you don't know what you're talking about...at least try to RTFA.
This contract doesn't cover DVDs, this is the contract between the DVDCCA and Device Manufacturers.
Ummm, this contract is entered into between the CSS Group (whatever their name is) and device manufacturers or software player distributors, NOT between users and the CSS Group. I've never seen a license agreement on a DVD before.
Everybody knows to do this? How many non-technical people do you know exactly? I say this for 2 reasons:
1) I have yet to meet a non-geek that has an adblocker installed (excluding the few people who's computer I set up for them)
2) Unless Doubleclick has magic money-growing trees, clearly not everybody knows to block them, considering they are still raking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Care to provide some evidence that this occured. If I recall correctly, what you claim Google did was actually what other Search Engines were doing.
Don't be too upset. I know you must be embarrassed that it took you 9 years (how old Google is) to figure out that "Don't be evil" was marketing speak and that Google's #1 concern is profits, not whether a bunch of nerds on Slashdot see them as evil or not. There is a reason their unofficial company motto was made so incredibly vague and subjective in the first place.
Considering the sheer number of search results Google processes, the amount of money they make and how they are one of the most visited sites on the internet, I wouldn't exactly call web searchers a "Small Demographic".
Thanks captain obvious, I had no idea Google was a data-mining company that wants all of our data. All this time I thought they gave these things away to "not be evil". (Sarcastic btw).
Exactly. Doubleclick's SEO/SEM arm is a small fraction of the total company. Google could forgo the profits from it and turn it into exactly what you said (possibly even integrating it into webmaster tools and giving it away) without harming the objectivity of their results one bit. The second Doubleclick/Performics, after the aquisition is completed, starts encouraging people to SPAM Google's index, then there's a problem.
I somehow don't see spending $3.1 Billion for a huge company like Doubleclick just to get a small portion of said company is very wise (or a plausible explanation of the aquisition either) when Google could have simply snapped up an independant SEO/SEM firm for a fraction of the cost. So, from my point of view and using common sense, Google didn't buy Doubleclick for this reason. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I'm sure C|Net can afford the bandwidth for this article. No reason to rip-off their article. The whole reason companies publish stuff for free is because ads help pay for it.
Yes, awesome theatre quality!! I get to hear random cell phones ringing, kids (and some adults) talking, occasional people fighting, my shoes fused to the floor by fermenting drinks, etc etc.
Oh, and let's not forget not being able to go to the bathroom for the entire movie without missing some of it.
I'd take a 42" LCD TV over the theatre any day of the week.
Oh, and btw, there's a reason the front 3 rows of the theatre are rarely taken. The reason for that is because when you have a screen that huge, you don't want to be sitting close to it. So when you're forced to sit close to a screen (say due to the size constraints of....your living room for instance) you tend to want a smaller screen (let's say between 32 and 52 inches for the sake of argument).
And last but not least, I don't have to pay $7 or $8 for a bag of popcorn at home. I can pop it myself (and have it taste better than the crap you get at the theatre) for a fraction of the cost.
Not to say that you shouldn't enjoy the theatre. But many people would hardly call the theatre "quality".