I'm not opposed to personalized advertising. I don't see what the fuss is about really. Who cares if an advertising company has on record my TV viewing preferences?
Maybe it would stop me from receiving tampon and ED commercials.
With apologies to joet3ch1, this does not deserve +3 funny. It's more akin to a misinformed troll. First of all, the site in question is the copyright site, which is worlds different than patents. They are barely in the same ballpark. Just as joe owns the copyright to his comment (and I to mine), Microsoft owns the copyright to everything it has written, but I fail to see how that relates to anything, nor even how that is a negative thing.
And besides, IBM is the chief of patent-hoggers (well and Amazon for frivolous ones).
That is a different issue entirely, and I'll reserve my judgment on that. But clearly that is not what most slashdotters and others are talking about when they speak of their downloading antics. If that was all the "illegal" (it could be construed as legal perhaps, IANAL) music downloading that was going on, I don't think anyone would raise a ruckus. The issue is people downloading what they most certainly have not previously paid for. Unless you were going to lead into that, in which case, feel free to elaborate.
When you steal software you are stealing money, because in effect, if you were to purchase the software you would pay money for it.
If you wouldn't purchase the software in the first place, then you have no right to own a copy of it.
You did not deprive anyone their copy of the Rolex by returning it with a fake receipt. You merely deprived the vendor from the money they should have earned on that Rolex. So how again is that different?
What's most interesting and ironic is I forsee many posts in this thread that object to the scams and support the retailers who are scammed and cheated out of their hard work and reward. However these same people will pirate (pick your favorite word) Windows XP, Adobe Photoshop, and so on, with no thought of the "large corporation". Hypocrisy runs rampant, and I'll admit I'm not immune to it, but surely it is worthy of reflection.
I mean, be honest: what is the difference? Printing receipts is bad, but downloading stuff from the Evil Empire is good? Or am I oversimplifying?
Oh and by the way: kudos on a well-done article summary. I wish they were all as informative and preserved the theme of the original article.
In any case, Bush isn't teaching this. He was pressured into giving his opinion, and he gave it. That's all.
And it's only an opinion of one man; I don't think he means to legislate it or any such thing. He recognizes, as should everybody, that its not his jurisdiction, if you will.
Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
No.
Kids will see right through it, and disdain it as they do educational movies. The instant that kids realize that they are being fed propaganda, they will reject it (and kids do realize these things).
230,000 were identified as potentially vulnerable, 60,000 are very likely to be open to this specific type of attack, and 13,000 have a cache that can definitely be poisoned.
Okay, let's have it for unclear writing!
Seriously, what does this even mean? Of the 250,000 that are vulnerable, 230,000 are vulnerable, 60,000 are vulnerable, and 13,000 are vulnerable.
However, evolution has been picked-apart to death; probably the most attacked scientific theory to date. But not in the classroom. Specifically, the problem is teachers are not allowed to raise issue with the theory in some cases, but in other cases what is in the textbooks is blatantly misleading and untrue. I.e. there are "facts" in textbooks that have since been shown to be incorrect (and I mean evolutionists have shown them to be incorrect in their studies of evolution, not that answersingenesis have shown them to be incorrect, or what-have-you), yet they remain in the textbook. Why?
The fact that it is still the exclusively accepted theory in the scientific community after all of this would make teachers poking at it seem like... well... zealotism. Proof by democracy then?
Why would I as a creationist Christian want Creationism, or "Intelligent Design" (whatever that means) taught in the classroom?
I'll say it bluntly, I don't.
As a Christian, I don't want a non-Christian teaching their most probably distorted perspective on something they don't believe at all with a tone of disdain throughout. They think it's hogwash, so they won't be fair in teaching the merits of whatever Intelligent Design is.
No, as a creationist, all I want is that teachers have the freedom to raise arguments against current evolutionary theory in class, as a topic for discussion or just as a point that the theory of evolution as the origin of all life from a common ancestor does have flaws.
Now then, I think a teacher should be able to raise these points. That's all.
And please don't reply to this arguing why evolution is fact and why creation *can not* have occured. Not that I am unwilling to consider such arguments, but that is not the point I made in this post. It seems that so often what started out as a point on a different playing field degrades into an argument of evolution vs. creation, which is not what I've presented. That is all.
What makes a robot these days? Is anything mechanical a robot? My first inclination would be to call this a remote-controlled car, not a robot. The same applies to a lesser extent to things such as F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Competition. I always thought a robot should have some level of artificial intelligence or (less extremely) autonomy, rather than just another mechanical device controlled by humans. Or is that just the poor science fiction I have read coming out in my assumptions?
Readable code is important, but I think equally important is readable filenames. I mean how many times have you downloaded the source to a program only to not know what you were looking at? Clear, self-explanatory filenames go a long way.
Slashdot Mirror
Or a power cord with broadband over powerlines ;)
Hey, at least the summary was kind enough to clarify that he meant Electronic Arts the game giant, and not Electronic Arts the chimney sweep.
Out of curiosity, what emulators do you use?
I find it's always a struggle to sift through the not-quite-working ones and finding the real gems.
And growing the bone mass lost from a 6 month stint back, can take a long time.
I hate comments like that. Immediately I want to know how long, but all I know is that it's the ever-subjective "a long time". Gee, thanks.
(wow that sounds really negative.. it's not actually *thaat* important to me... oh well)
I'm not opposed to personalized advertising. I don't see what the fuss is about really. Who cares if an advertising company has on record my TV viewing preferences?
Maybe it would stop me from receiving tampon and ED commercials.
score: 3 funny?
With apologies to joet3ch1, this does not deserve +3 funny. It's more akin to a misinformed troll. First of all, the site in question is the copyright site, which is worlds different than patents. They are barely in the same ballpark. Just as joe owns the copyright to his comment (and I to mine), Microsoft owns the copyright to everything it has written, but I fail to see how that relates to anything, nor even how that is a negative thing.
And besides, IBM is the chief of patent-hoggers (well and Amazon for frivolous ones).
I meant `submitters'.
First rule of slashdot is never respond to a grammar nazi.
Second rule of slashdot is if you disobey the first rule, don't make grammar mistakes in said reply.
Well, crap.
is it japanese for iTunes?
No. It must be your font or something.. Slashdot submitter's don't make mistakes.
*bursts out laughing*
But seriously, was it really necessary to point out?
You:
;)
Are the artists that are doing this in violation of their contract with Sony?
The summary:
Japanese musicians under contract by Sony are defying their contracts by using Apple's iTunes service to deliver songs.
I'll let you connect the dots
The solutions are as obvious as the categories.
Does anybody with the required knowledge of databases not know about Apache and Postgres/My/whatever SQL?
That is a different issue entirely, and I'll reserve my judgment on that. But clearly that is not what most slashdotters and others are talking about when they speak of their downloading antics. If that was all the "illegal" (it could be construed as legal perhaps, IANAL) music downloading that was going on, I don't think anyone would raise a ruckus. The issue is people downloading what they most certainly have not previously paid for. Unless you were going to lead into that, in which case, feel free to elaborate.
When you steal software you are stealing money, because in effect, if you were to purchase the software you would pay money for it.
If you wouldn't purchase the software in the first place, then you have no right to own a copy of it.
You did not deprive anyone their copy of the Rolex by returning it with a fake receipt. You merely deprived the vendor from the money they should have earned on that Rolex. So how again is that different?
What's most interesting and ironic is I forsee many posts in this thread that object to the scams and support the retailers who are scammed and cheated out of their hard work and reward. However these same people will pirate (pick your favorite word) Windows XP, Adobe Photoshop, and so on, with no thought of the "large corporation". Hypocrisy runs rampant, and I'll admit I'm not immune to it, but surely it is worthy of reflection.
I mean, be honest: what is the difference? Printing receipts is bad, but downloading stuff from the Evil Empire is good? Or am I oversimplifying?
Oh and by the way: kudos on a well-done article summary. I wish they were all as informative and preserved the theme of the original article.
President of the United States. It's an acronym.
In any case, Bush isn't teaching this. He was pressured into giving his opinion, and he gave it. That's all.
And it's only an opinion of one man; I don't think he means to legislate it or any such thing. He recognizes, as should everybody, that its not his jurisdiction, if you will.
Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
No.
Kids will see right through it, and disdain it as they do educational movies. The instant that kids realize that they are being fed propaganda, they will reject it (and kids do realize these things).
230,000 were identified as potentially vulnerable, 60,000 are very likely to be open to this specific type of attack, and 13,000 have a cache that can definitely be poisoned.
Okay, let's have it for unclear writing!
Seriously, what does this even mean? Of the 250,000 that are vulnerable, 230,000 are vulnerable, 60,000 are vulnerable, and 13,000 are vulnerable.
Okay, that clears it up.
However, evolution has been picked-apart to death; probably the most attacked scientific theory to date.
But not in the classroom. Specifically, the problem is teachers are not allowed to raise issue with the theory in some cases, but in other cases what is in the textbooks is blatantly misleading and untrue. I.e. there are "facts" in textbooks that have since been shown to be incorrect (and I mean evolutionists have shown them to be incorrect in their studies of evolution, not that answersingenesis have shown them to be incorrect, or what-have-you), yet they remain in the textbook. Why?
The fact that it is still the exclusively accepted theory in the scientific community after all of this would make teachers poking at it seem like... well... zealotism.
Proof by democracy then?
Why would I as a creationist Christian want Creationism, or "Intelligent Design" (whatever that means) taught in the classroom?
I'll say it bluntly, I don't.
As a Christian, I don't want a non-Christian teaching their most probably distorted perspective on something they don't believe at all with a tone of disdain throughout. They think it's hogwash, so they won't be fair in teaching the merits of whatever Intelligent Design is.
No, as a creationist, all I want is that teachers have the freedom to raise arguments against current evolutionary theory in class, as a topic for discussion or just as a point that the theory of evolution as the origin of all life from a common ancestor does have flaws.
Now then, I think a teacher should be able to raise these points. That's all.
And please don't reply to this arguing why evolution is fact and why creation *can not* have occured. Not that I am unwilling to consider such arguments, but that is not the point I made in this post. It seems that so often what started out as a point on a different playing field degrades into an argument of evolution vs. creation, which is not what I've presented. That is all.
I paid $92 CDN for Ocarina of Time when it came out for N64.
Let's see, back then that was probably still more than $59 USD.
309 comments so far, and the highest score is 2?
You guys suck!
Ho-hum, down to -1 offtopic I go.
I am neither Simon nor one of his colleagues, so they aren't my prospective users, but point taken.
In case you're even slower than me, it's a 20 MB .mpg file
;)
I did catch that, actually
Although it woooould be more clear to write mpeg rather than MPG. But I digress..
Oh right, my real post:
What makes a robot these days? Is anything mechanical a robot? My first inclination would be to call this a remote-controlled car, not a robot. The same applies to a lesser extent to things such as F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Competition. I always thought a robot should have some level of artificial intelligence or (less extremely) autonomy, rather than just another mechanical device controlled by humans. Or is that just the poor science fiction I have read coming out in my assumptions?
(20M mpg)?
20 million miles to the gallon? I gotta get that robot!
Readable code is important, but I think equally important is readable filenames. I mean how many times have you downloaded the source to a program only to not know what you were looking at? Clear, self-explanatory filenames go a long way.