Although drawing the line on free trade at "forced labor" is about the same move politically as saying "I'll be tough on crime" or "save the future for our children" - it's a political no-brainer. Which is why I won't herald it as brilliant or earth-shattering.
It's not like the US imports a great deal from Burma as it is.
What's really sad is how some people will assume that you're a troll, just because they're too young to remember how much Go-bots sucked when compared to Transformers. No as much as the "power of living rock" guys, but still stucked quite a bit.
And just in case somebody thinks this is off-topic, remember that Japanese robots have two eyes and are considered "living shapes" for the purpose of territory captured.
That's why you should test your shell scripts with something like ash, instead of trusting a more advanced shell to behave appropriately in all circumstances. ash is a POSIX compliant clone of the original sh.
Re:The battles would have been a lot better
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 1
I don't have a copy of the book on me (and when I look it up, I have a feeling you will be vindicated - my friends and I have been arguing about this for a while, and most of our copies are on loan right now). I don't think it's a stretch to see Legolas riding a shield down the stairs - but that's just my opinion, and obviously not yours.
Well, we didn't get to see Treebeard interact with the Ring - that was really the key part of Bombadil's role in the book. In the movie, I think Treebeard plays double-duty in Bombadil's abscence, except that it's made fairly apparent that the Ents won't survive into the Fourth Age (not knowing where the Ent-Wives are, and all).
If you've never seen Dead Alive (one of Jackson's earlier horror movies), here's a hint: try to find it funny in the first half-hour, or you'll spend the last half-hour projectile vomiting. Dead Alive is quite possible the goriest slasher film I'm ever seen - a sense of humor will keep your lunch where it belongs.
Re:The battles would have been a lot better
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 0, Troll
if Legolas hadn't snowboarded down the stairs on his shield
I can understand where you might find it disconcerting - but it is in the book.
Tom Bombadil was a character of no consequence - a page-filling distraction. When you consider him within the entire scope of the epic, he really does not serve any true purpose.
Except that he was older than any other resident of Middle-Earth, and was the only character the One Ring (or any of its effects) held no power over. I think he serves as an important contrast to the immortality of the elves and the temporality of the humans involved in the last struggle of the Third Age.
Windows has one advantage over Linux and OS X, and that is the amount of mindshare it currently has in the marketplace. Most everything else can only vaguely be termed a technical advantage - and if you've never spent a day or two in "driver hell", you really don't know just how lame the driver support can be. Also, OS X doesn't have driver problems because Apple has all the drivers set up in advance for the extremely limited subset of all hardware that works with Apple. Linux has driver problems because hardware manufacturers are often loathe to write Linux drivers.
OS X is slick, and the perfect Unix for a home user, and will probably surpass Linux for home desktop use - if Apple ever decides to release it for the x86 architecture. Unless they do that, they've limited their mindshare to people who can afford to buy an Apple. Sure, it's easy to use - but it's also expensive to use. And Apple will pound application developers for not adhering to the UI guideline - as a friendly service to their userbase.
Linux as a movement doesn't much care about being easy to use. It probably never will. Linux wants to "get it done", and it caters to a business/hacker audience. This makes Linux more suitable for an enterprise desktop or a performance-minded shop - nevermind the rest. Maybe someday it could succeed where Apple will probably fail - but I doubt it.
If we are truly going to limit Lessig's debating skill, we're going to need some Kryptonite, dimensional shackles, or a bondage dwarf that kicks him in the stomach every thirty seconds.
I live in St Paul - Qwest is the epitome of "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." They've put the axe above every possible competitor they could have - they've been stalling on the fiber they laid down for FOREVER. Our building had external wiring from the 60's, which wasn't replaced until our ISP (VISI, which I highly recommend) wanted to connect over the lossy wires. And our DSL line costs three times as much as our service. Something about this whole thing isn't right.
I always forget that Qwest is just another phone company to people outside of MN.
Only in a kangaroo court would double-dipping be allowed to take place. The whole process of suing for damages is not to "screw them what screwed me" it is to make the plaintiff "whole". Courts, in general, do not like the idea of paying for a single wrong twice - it doesn't make legal sense.
My roommate knows him from IRC - he was taking over from a group who had just been fired. He sent them a weekly build - and they just shipped it. Didn't even ask him if it worked (it compiled, but that's never been good enough;)
If I put up information on a web site, for free, as a volunteer, then the public has no rights whatsoever, either legally or morally. Why the hell should they? They didn't do anything to earn them.
The fact that the public has a right to anything you produce is the reason that the public domain exists. Copyright is instituted by governments to keep creative people in a position to keep creating - but when you're dead, the information should go somewhere to enhance the public good. If the human race is to advance, worthy knowledge needs to be transmitted to people - and some knowledge is too important to charge money for. If your information hasn't been saved by somebody else, where are we supposed to get it when your limited, exclusive rights to it expire? Keep in mind that I don't think copyright is wrong - I give away what I feel should be given away, and I sell what I think I should sell. But I think the current state of copyright law is in the rights - this is, of course, debatable.
If you're arguing that by putting it up on the web an author effectively forfeits all rights to control their work -- i.e., that the usual principles of copyright shouldn't apply for some reason in this medium -- then you're basically saying that anyone who might ever want to publish original material they wrote shouldn't ever make anything available on the web first.
If you put something on the web that's world-readable, you've published it electronically. Regardless of how many people have seen it, most publishers (that I know of) will consider a dead-tree publication a "reprint". If I want to submit something on the web for people to read, I will make them login and identify themselves first - with a disclaimer. Publishing then becomes interpersonal communication - which is a very different thing.
No, it doesn't. But it has the right to refuse entry to anyone who doesn't provide the information it requires.
Actually it does - it's not public property - if they wanted to search you for weapons before you step on the premises, they can bar your entry if they so desire. They will lose an enormous amount of influence in the business community by doing so, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
At banks and bars, both of their access restrictions make sense.
In Minnesota (where I currently reside) a concealed-carry law just went into effect. With a permit, you can carry a concealed weapon on you wherever you go - except for buildings which don't allow them on the premises. Depending on the buildings you go in , they may have to wand you / search you before you get in. I don't like it, but that's the way it is - because sometimes it's better to be cautious than assume that people will do the right thing.
That is debatable. The normal protocol on the Internet is that if you visit my site, I get certain information about your visit in exchange. That's your side of the bargain. If you don't like it, don't visit my site; no-one's forcing you to, and you have no right to my material "just because". People like you seem to want an exemption to the usual principles of fair deals and copyrights because it would be to their advantage. Hey, robbing a bank would be to my advantage, maybe the government will change the theft laws so I can do it. I'm guessing the banks might object, though, as unreasonable of them as that would be.
People like me? Well, you don't exactly know a whole lot about me, do you? If you look around on the net, you'll find out enough, and I don't care what you do find - because I honestly think I'm really boring. I haven't heard mention of this "protocol" before - the Internet is set up to be whatever you want it to be. If I want to wander it anonymously, you have the right to refuse my access to my webpage because my browser doesn't tell you anything about me. Regardless of what the law says, some people are driven by their inner morality and principles rather than adhering to the letter of every little o
Re:The problem is people take jobs just for the mo
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
How is your job important to planet earth?
Congratulations if you know exactly what impact your job is having on the people of Belgium, but most people will never have that luxury - "how is anybody's job important to planet Earth?" If one person isn't doing a job, it doesn't get done. If we didn't have janitors, shit wouldn't get cleaned up. If we didn't have data entry technicians, data would remain unentered. I believe the list goes on. For the sake of a nail, the war was lost, and all that.
PS - Having a college degree (or even two) mean NOTHING about choosing your job. Sometimes the economy is just shite - and if you honestly believe that you will have a career you love because you're qualified for it and competent, then let me be the first to say Happy Birthday from Planet Motherfucker!
As I've just posted elsewhere, it is quite feasible that a site owner could be damaged if caches maintain information after the original site has been changed or taken down.
Damaged in what way? Aren't there archives of newspapers, journals, and magazines? And if time-sensitive information is present on a website, does the public have a right to see what was previously there? Websites can get away with a lot of instant censorship that way - you can check out this site for an archive designed in response to that very issue. If you have a specific example related to this problem, I would love to hear it.
There is also the issue of a site owner's right to know who is visiting them.
Right - just like WalMart has the right to pat down and run a credit check on everyone who walks through their doors. While a site admin might like to know everything about a person who wanders on to their site, they have no "de facto" claim to information about any/everybody who browses their site.
On a related note, there are questions of advertising revenue etc.
If your site is being sponsored by ad revenue, I think the site owners need to find a better business model. (Might I recommend the "customers pay a premium to not have ads" model?) And if your content is worth viewing, your viewers will want the latest, greatest version of it - I haven't seen a web archive yet that claims this information is the most current and up-to-date.
This issue isn't so black and white as the "information belongs to me" crowd seems to believe it is.
I just know (in the way that you know these things just have to happen) that I'm going to have to make a phone call while hanging upside-down, and the damn thing will just explode, because the QA guys are thinking "who could possible need to make a call hanging upside-down?". Damn corner-cases.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the only way to be safe.
That's Bruce Schneier (Crypto God). This is Bruce Sterling (Cyperpunk Something).
Although drawing the line on free trade at "forced labor" is about the same move politically as saying "I'll be tough on crime" or "save the future for our children" - it's a political no-brainer. Which is why I won't herald it as brilliant or earth-shattering.
It's not like the US imports a great deal from Burma as it is.
his party and his political views support free trade.
Which explains why he has closed off all trade with Burma, right?
I think his party only cares about certain kinds of free trade, and only when it is convenient.
What's really sad is how some people will assume that you're a troll, just because they're too young to remember how much Go-bots sucked when compared to Transformers. No as much as the "power of living rock" guys, but still stucked quite a bit.
And just in case somebody thinks this is off-topic, remember that Japanese robots have two eyes and are considered "living shapes" for the purpose of territory captured.
for how enduring the music is is at Overclocked Remix. A must-listen for those who know video game music never dies - it just gets remixed.
Well, you grab his tricorder. I'll get his wallet.
That's why you should test your shell scripts with something like ash, instead of trusting a more advanced shell to behave appropriately in all circumstances. ash is a POSIX compliant clone of the original sh.
I don't have a copy of the book on me (and when I look it up, I have a feeling you will be vindicated - my friends and I have been arguing about this for a while, and most of our copies are on loan right now). I don't think it's a stretch to see Legolas riding a shield down the stairs - but that's just my opinion, and obviously not yours.
Well, we didn't get to see Treebeard interact with the Ring - that was really the key part of Bombadil's role in the book. In the movie, I think Treebeard plays double-duty in Bombadil's abscence, except that it's made fairly apparent that the Ents won't survive into the Fourth Age (not knowing where the Ent-Wives are, and all).
If you've never seen Dead Alive (one of Jackson's earlier horror movies), here's a hint: try to find it funny in the first half-hour, or you'll spend the last half-hour projectile vomiting. Dead Alive is quite possible the goriest slasher film I'm ever seen - a sense of humor will keep your lunch where it belongs.
if Legolas hadn't snowboarded down the stairs on his shield
I can understand where you might find it disconcerting - but it is in the book.
Tom Bombadil was a character of no consequence - a page-filling distraction. When you consider him within the entire scope of the epic, he really does not serve any true purpose.
Except that he was older than any other resident of Middle-Earth, and was the only character the One Ring (or any of its effects) held no power over. I think he serves as an important contrast to the immortality of the elves and the temporality of the humans involved in the last struggle of the Third Age.
It is Film Gimp - the old project homepage will tell you as much.
Yeearr! Shive me temp files!
Windows has one advantage over Linux and OS X, and that is the amount of mindshare it currently has in the marketplace. Most everything else can only vaguely be termed a technical advantage - and if you've never spent a day or two in "driver hell", you really don't know just how lame the driver support can be. Also, OS X doesn't have driver problems because Apple has all the drivers set up in advance for the extremely limited subset of all hardware that works with Apple. Linux has driver problems because hardware manufacturers are often loathe to write Linux drivers.
OS X is slick, and the perfect Unix for a home user, and will probably surpass Linux for home desktop use - if Apple ever decides to release it for the x86 architecture. Unless they do that, they've limited their mindshare to people who can afford to buy an Apple. Sure, it's easy to use - but it's also expensive to use. And Apple will pound application developers for not adhering to the UI guideline - as a friendly service to their userbase.
Linux as a movement doesn't much care about being easy to use. It probably never will. Linux wants to "get it done", and it caters to a business/hacker audience. This makes Linux more suitable for an enterprise desktop or a performance-minded shop - nevermind the rest. Maybe someday it could succeed where Apple will probably fail - but I doubt it.
If we are truly going to limit Lessig's debating skill, we're going to need some Kryptonite, dimensional shackles, or a bondage dwarf that kicks him in the stomach every thirty seconds.
And no - the wit and irony is not lost on me.
His name was Claudiu Prisnel.
His name was Claudiu Prisnel.
I live in St Paul - Qwest is the epitome of "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." They've put the axe above every possible competitor they could have - they've been stalling on the fiber they laid down for FOREVER. Our building had external wiring from the 60's, which wasn't replaced until our ISP (VISI, which I highly recommend) wanted to connect over the lossy wires. And our DSL line costs three times as much as our service. Something about this whole thing isn't right.
I always forget that Qwest is just another phone company to people outside of MN.
Only in a kangaroo court would double-dipping be allowed to take place. The whole process of suing for damages is not to "screw them what screwed me" it is to make the plaintiff "whole". Courts, in general, do not like the idea of paying for a single wrong twice - it doesn't make legal sense.
My roommate knows him from IRC - he was taking over from a group who had just been fired. He sent them a weekly build - and they just shipped it. Didn't even ask him if it worked (it compiled, but that's never been good enough ;)
If I put up information on a web site, for free, as a volunteer, then the public has no rights whatsoever, either legally or morally. Why the hell should they? They didn't do anything to earn them.
The fact that the public has a right to anything you produce is the reason that the public domain exists. Copyright is instituted by governments to keep creative people in a position to keep creating - but when you're dead, the information should go somewhere to enhance the public good. If the human race is to advance, worthy knowledge needs to be transmitted to people - and some knowledge is too important to charge money for. If your information hasn't been saved by somebody else, where are we supposed to get it when your limited, exclusive rights to it expire? Keep in mind that I don't think copyright is wrong - I give away what I feel should be given away, and I sell what I think I should sell. But I think the current state of copyright law is in the rights - this is, of course, debatable.
If you're arguing that by putting it up on the web an author effectively forfeits all rights to control their work -- i.e., that the usual principles of copyright shouldn't apply for some reason in this medium -- then you're basically saying that anyone who might ever want to publish original material they wrote shouldn't ever make anything available on the web first.
If you put something on the web that's world-readable, you've published it electronically. Regardless of how many people have seen it, most publishers (that I know of) will consider a dead-tree publication a "reprint". If I want to submit something on the web for people to read, I will make them login and identify themselves first - with a disclaimer. Publishing then becomes interpersonal communication - which is a very different thing.
No, it doesn't. But it has the right to refuse entry to anyone who doesn't provide the information it requires.
Actually it does - it's not public property - if they wanted to search you for weapons before you step on the premises, they can bar your entry if they so desire. They will lose an enormous amount of influence in the business community by doing so, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
At banks and bars, both of their access restrictions make sense.
In Minnesota (where I currently reside) a concealed-carry law just went into effect. With a permit, you can carry a concealed weapon on you wherever you go - except for buildings which don't allow them on the premises. Depending on the buildings you go in , they may have to wand you / search you before you get in. I don't like it, but that's the way it is - because sometimes it's better to be cautious than assume that people will do the right thing.
That is debatable. The normal protocol on the Internet is that if you visit my site, I get certain information about your visit in exchange. That's your side of the bargain. If you don't like it, don't visit my site; no-one's forcing you to, and you have no right to my material "just because". People like you seem to want an exemption to the usual principles of fair deals and copyrights because it would be to their advantage. Hey, robbing a bank would be to my advantage, maybe the government will change the theft laws so I can do it. I'm guessing the banks might object, though, as unreasonable of them as that would be.
People like me? Well, you don't exactly know a whole lot about me, do you? If you look around on the net, you'll find out enough, and I don't care what you do find - because I honestly think I'm really boring. I haven't heard mention of this "protocol" before - the Internet is set up to be whatever you want it to be. If I want to wander it anonymously, you have the right to refuse my access to my webpage because my browser doesn't tell you anything about me. Regardless of what the law says, some people are driven by their inner morality and principles rather than adhering to the letter of every little o
How is your job important to planet earth?
Congratulations if you know exactly what impact your job is having on the people of Belgium, but most people will never have that luxury - "how is anybody's job important to planet Earth?" If one person isn't doing a job, it doesn't get done. If we didn't have janitors, shit wouldn't get cleaned up. If we didn't have data entry technicians, data would remain unentered. I believe the list goes on. For the sake of a nail, the war was lost, and all that.
PS - Having a college degree (or even two) mean NOTHING about choosing your job. Sometimes the economy is just shite - and if you honestly believe that you will have a career you love because you're qualified for it and competent, then let me be the first to say Happy Birthday from Planet Motherfucker !
As I've just posted elsewhere, it is quite feasible that a site owner could be damaged if caches maintain information after the original site has been changed or taken down.
Damaged in what way? Aren't there archives of newspapers, journals, and magazines? And if time-sensitive information is present on a website, does the public have a right to see what was previously there? Websites can get away with a lot of instant censorship that way - you can check out this site for an archive designed in response to that very issue. If you have a specific example related to this problem, I would love to hear it.
There is also the issue of a site owner's right to know who is visiting them.
Right - just like WalMart has the right to pat down and run a credit check on everyone who walks through their doors. While a site admin might like to know everything about a person who wanders on to their site, they have no "de facto" claim to information about any/everybody who browses their site.
On a related note, there are questions of advertising revenue etc.
If your site is being sponsored by ad revenue, I think the site owners need to find a better business model. (Might I recommend the "customers pay a premium to not have ads" model?) And if your content is worth viewing, your viewers will want the latest, greatest version of it - I haven't seen a web archive yet that claims this information is the most current and up-to-date.
This issue isn't so black and white as the "information belongs to me" crowd seems to believe it is.
I just know (in the way that you know these things just have to happen) that I'm going to have to make a phone call while hanging upside-down, and the damn thing will just explode, because the QA guys are thinking "who could possible need to make a call hanging upside-down?". Damn corner-cases.