Whether you are for or against the Republicans, this misuse and misdirection of the public for PR purposes done by a PR firm must be viewed as dispicable, especially when done by those in power
I would like a hit of whatever you're smoking. Manipulating public opinon through any effective means possible is what PR firms get paid to do.
It basically requires an About box that displays licensing and warranty terms. Unfortunately, the wording needs to be more clear -- this can be more liberally interpreted to mean that every interface (i.e., screen) requires such an About box.
I'm not seeing how it requires popups or advertising, though.
Associating themselves with a company that is almost universally reviled by geeks is a huge slap in the face to Firefox's core group of supporters.
That's certainly a possibility -- but are you going to stop using it? Am I? How about the rest of the geeks? Generally speaking, I think it's safe to say know. Any possible loss of usage will likely be far outweighed by the gains they make as a result. Because to those of us who are in it for the principal, it's doubtless extremely offensive. But for those of us who think FF is a great, safe browser that's a more-than-adequate alternative to IE's crap, it doesn't really matter either way.
OT: haha. Did you really just waste a mod point to mod this 'overrated' when it was only "+1" because I'm a registered user?... meaning that nobody 'rated' it +1 in the first place?
That's special.
Of course it's not enough. We all know the moon is fat and horny. It needs to take a quick orbit around the earth, then drift on over to the Sun to relieve some of that biological... erm... geological pressure.
But the blind XP bashing really needs to stop around here, its very counter productive and not even funny anymore.
Counterproductive? Oh, absolutely. Not funny anymore? Let's not be hasty. Personally, if I don't see "m$ suxors!!!1" written somewhere before I start my day, I'm in a really foul mood. I need that morning bash. It's like coffee, y'know?
I'm not sure how offering a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess) or swag (fabric that is gathered at the top of a window treatment into loose scallops) would make this more newsworthy, but hey... whatever does it for you.
Absolutely - but now it sounds like you're agreeing with me. My whole point was that the article drew its conclusion by making a correlation where none [provably] existed.
Saying that violence among children is lower is not proof that video games doesn't increase it. Ugh, that was a twisted sentence. I'm onlytrying to point out that this doesn't even show correlational evidence. Example: instead of game system release dates, plug in new desktop CPU release dates. Using the logic presented in the article, I could now claim that it's clear that increasing CPU speeds has served to decrease youth violence. Obviously this logic is fallacy -- and so is the logic used in GP's article
I'm not saying that their conclusion is wrong -- just that the underlying logic is flawed.
(I will again reiterate -- my personal opinion is that games probably decrease youth violence overall.)
According to this site [gamerevolution.com], violent crime rates for children is at an all-time low.
And accourding to this site, the recording industry loses 4-6 billion dollars per year to piracy. Now I agree with your point completely, but perhaps citing a site such as 'gamerevolution.com' for 'facts' is not the best route to prove that point...
This, of course, is no different than direct election -- and there's a reason why we aren't doing that in the first place.
To your point -- not everyone in a blue state wants to vote blue; not everyone in a red state wants to vote red. If enough of them got off of their collective asses and voted, then it/would/ change the way their state's votes went.
My point is, that's the argument he's going to be focusing on when he fights this. And if his lawyers do it well enough, either in this case or on appeal, he just might win -- regardless of whether or not he owned the video.
The point is, the only thing that (presumably) they have to prove it... is an IP address. All of what you said might be true -- but how can they prove any of it?
There was a very interesting piece on BBC Radio's "From Our Own Correspondent", by a journalist who lived in Beijing for four years, then found himself in Delhi for six months
Found himself in Delhi, you say? Was he Shanghaied?
I'm sure customers will be greatly pissed off. I would be. (And have been starting with WPA -- I have one dual-boot Windows box, and 3 linux boxes at home) But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them will not perceive that they have a choice.
And of few cents per song (approx) that you pay allofmp3, what percent does the artist get? Let's assume that they really do pay wroyalties. Call it 1%. 1% of 5 cents is.0005 cents. That means if an artist sold 100,000 songs via allofmp3, they would collect an astounding paycheck of $50. Lesser known artists might get a whole dollar or two! Of the $500 you so generously spent, the artists would have gotten five big ones -- dollars, that is.
Yes, my numbers are arbitrary. I would love for someone to provide actual numbers -- while I might be off, and the total payout might be $150 instead of $50 per 100,000 sales, or they made $10 off of parent instead of $5, my point remains valid.
You want something for nothing; or at best a token amount. While that's very philosophical of you, it's not very practical for the creative talents who are behind the music. You assuage your conscience by telling yourself that allofmp3 makes sure the artist gets paid, but do you REALLY think ROMS actually pays any artists who never contracted with them in the first place? Even if they do, that payment is at best a token -- some would say insulting -- amount.
Neither Allofmp3 nor ROMS was given rights to distribute the artists' music. The record labels were. Like it or not, it's the simple truth. If you really want to show them you mean it, you'll start making your purchases from somewhere like cdbaby.com, or emusic, and boycott RIAA products completely. If done in sufficiently quantity, this would send a message to RIAA (to change their business) and to the artist (not to sign with RIAA, it'll hurt sales).
Realistically, I'm sure you'll continue to make the 'smart buy' and purchase from allofmp3, in spite of anything that I or anyone else says -- but you should at least by honest with yourself about what you're doing.
I suspect you'll be waiting a long time, save for one or two idiots who may not understand what an 'activist judge' is. In this case, the judge [rightly] blocked intervention of an entity that had no business being involved. This has nothing to do with activism on the bench.
So is the solution to gimp the browser, or set up your DNS properly?
I can put local servers on my network into the address bar, without a protocol indicator (ie: mymailserver by itself) and it correctly brings up the web site hosted on that server.
I have no idea why WGA issued a warning either, but I can say that if it had anything to do with a version of something installed on a VM, you would think that's a pretty esoteric corner case that some developer should just live with.
Between the growing popularity of dual(+)-core processors, and Xen's, MS's, and VMware's free offerings (yes, I know they're not apples-to-apples, now shut up about it), this is becoming less and less of a corner case especially within large corporations. For example, our company is in the process of deploying high-memory dual core workstations to all developers, using vmware to replace the 2+ desktop PCs that each person has to allow for testing in different environments.
You're rather incorrect on one point -- this will stop 'casual' pirates very effectively. Not the people who deliberately go out and search for keys, but the one who has bought a copy of XP and then tries to install it on both his wife's PC and his own. Or the small business owner with six PCs who wants to install using the same key on each, not realizing that he's not allowed to do that.
This is what it's meant to stop, and it is very successful in that. Customers may be annoyed by it, but the idea of 'alternative' won't ever occur to 95% of them -- so they will go out and buy another copy/key.
Whether or not preventing such causual copying is actually a good idea... that's a completely different topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you are for or against the Republicans, this misuse and misdirection of the public for PR purposes done by a PR firm must be viewed as dispicable, especially when done by those in power
I would like a hit of whatever you're smoking. Manipulating public opinon through any effective means possible is what PR firms get paid to do.
It basically requires an About box that displays licensing and warranty terms. Unfortunately, the wording needs to be more clear -- this can be more liberally interpreted to mean that every interface (i.e., screen) requires such an About box.
I'm not seeing how it requires popups or advertising, though.
Associating themselves with a company that is almost universally reviled by geeks is a huge slap in the face to Firefox's core group of supporters.
That's certainly a possibility -- but are you going to stop using it? Am I? How about the rest of the geeks? Generally speaking, I think it's safe to say know. Any possible loss of usage will likely be far outweighed by the gains they make as a result. Because to those of us who are in it for the principal, it's doubtless extremely offensive. But for those of us who think FF is a great, safe browser that's a more-than-adequate alternative to IE's crap, it doesn't really matter either way.
OT: haha. Did you really just waste a mod point to mod this 'overrated' when it was only "+1" because I'm a registered user? ... meaning that nobody 'rated' it +1 in the first place?
That's special.
Of course it's not enough. We all know the moon is fat and horny. It needs to take a quick orbit around the earth, then drift on over to the Sun to relieve some of that biological... erm... geological pressure.
But the blind XP bashing really needs to stop around here, its very counter productive and not even funny anymore.
Counterproductive? Oh, absolutely. Not funny anymore? Let's not be hasty. Personally, if I don't see "m$ suxors!!!1" written somewhere before I start my day, I'm in a really foul mood. I need that morning bash. It's like coffee, y'know?
I'm not sure how offering a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess) or swag (fabric that is gathered at the top of a window treatment into loose scallops) would make this more newsworthy, but hey... whatever does it for you.
Absolutely - but now it sounds like you're agreeing with me. My whole point was that the article drew its conclusion by making a correlation where none [provably] existed.
All these little date games rely on people's persistant non-compliant use of two-digit years.
You know, when Y2K rolls around, you all are SO gonna regret this.
Saying that violence among children is lower is not proof that video games doesn't increase it. Ugh, that was a twisted sentence. I'm onlytrying to point out that this doesn't even show correlational evidence. Example: instead of game system release dates, plug in new desktop CPU release dates. Using the logic presented in the article, I could now claim that it's clear that increasing CPU speeds has served to decrease youth violence. Obviously this logic is fallacy -- and so is the logic used in GP's article
I'm not saying that their conclusion is wrong -- just that the underlying logic is flawed. (I will again reiterate -- my personal opinion is that games probably decrease youth violence overall.)
According to this site [gamerevolution.com], violent crime rates for children is at an all-time low.
And accourding to this site, the recording industry loses 4-6 billion dollars per year to piracy. Now I agree with your point completely, but perhaps citing a site such as 'gamerevolution.com' for 'facts' is not the best route to prove that point...To your point -- not everyone in a blue state wants to vote blue; not everyone in a red state wants to vote red. If enough of them got off of their collective asses and voted, then it /would/ change the way their state's votes went.
My point is, that's the argument he's going to be focusing on when he fights this. And if his lawyers do it well enough, either in this case or on appeal, he just might win -- regardless of whether or not he owned the video.
I was all excited, I thought maybe it would be CPP, but it's still the same old GATC. That language is so dead.
The point is, the only thing that (presumably) they have to prove it... is an IP address. All of what you said might be true -- but how can they prove any of it?
There was a very interesting piece on BBC Radio's "From Our Own Correspondent", by a journalist who lived in Beijing for four years, then found himself in Delhi for six months
Found himself in Delhi, you say? Was he Shanghaied?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Well, it is an optional kind of thing. Not technically any more or less correct than not using it.
"If the judge had thrown out the case, that would be a real downer..." Hatch says. Yeah. I'd be all kinds of bummed out, dude.
You made a couple of typos, which I corrected below:
Basically, the people at SCO continue to have a company to work for only as long as litigation continues
Really, you should pay more attention to your keystrokes. That was a mess.
I'm sure customers will be greatly pissed off. I would be. (And have been starting with WPA -- I have one dual-boot Windows box, and 3 linux boxes at home) But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them will not perceive that they have a choice.
And of few cents per song (approx) that you pay allofmp3, what percent does the artist get? Let's assume that they really do pay wroyalties. Call it 1%. 1% of 5 cents is .0005 cents. That means if an artist sold 100,000 songs via allofmp3, they would collect an astounding paycheck of $50. Lesser known artists might get a whole dollar or two! Of the $500 you so generously spent, the artists would have gotten five big ones -- dollars, that is.
Yes, my numbers are arbitrary. I would love for someone to provide actual numbers -- while I might be off, and the total payout might be $150 instead of $50 per 100,000 sales, or they made $10 off of parent instead of $5, my point remains valid.
You want something for nothing; or at best a token amount. While that's very philosophical of you, it's not very practical for the creative talents who are behind the music. You assuage your conscience by telling yourself that allofmp3 makes sure the artist gets paid, but do you REALLY think ROMS actually pays any artists who never contracted with them in the first place? Even if they do, that payment is at best a token -- some would say insulting -- amount.
Neither Allofmp3 nor ROMS was given rights to distribute the artists' music. The record labels were. Like it or not, it's the simple truth. If you really want to show them you mean it, you'll start making your purchases from somewhere like cdbaby.com, or emusic, and boycott RIAA products completely. If done in sufficiently quantity, this would send a message to RIAA (to change their business) and to the artist (not to sign with RIAA, it'll hurt sales).
Realistically, I'm sure you'll continue to make the 'smart buy' and purchase from allofmp3, in spite of anything that I or anyone else says -- but you should at least by honest with yourself about what you're doing.
I suspect you'll be waiting a long time, save for one or two idiots who may not understand what an 'activist judge' is. In this case, the judge [rightly] blocked intervention of an entity that had no business being involved. This has nothing to do with activism on the bench.
Here's a good link with some differing viewpoints on what an activist judge is/does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_judge#Robert s.2FFrankfurter.2FHarlan_View
So is the solution to gimp the browser, or set up your DNS properly?
I can put local servers on my network into the address bar, without a protocol indicator (ie: mymailserver by itself) and it correctly brings up the web site hosted on that server.
Between the growing popularity of dual(+)-core processors, and Xen's, MS's, and VMware's free offerings (yes, I know they're not apples-to-apples, now shut up about it), this is becoming less and less of a corner case especially within large corporations. For example, our company is in the process of deploying high-memory dual core workstations to all developers, using vmware to replace the 2+ desktop PCs that each person has to allow for testing in different environments.
You're rather incorrect on one point -- this will stop 'casual' pirates very effectively. Not the people who deliberately go out and search for keys, but the one who has bought a copy of XP and then tries to install it on both his wife's PC and his own. Or the small business owner with six PCs who wants to install using the same key on each, not realizing that he's not allowed to do that.
This is what it's meant to stop, and it is very successful in that. Customers may be annoyed by it, but the idea of 'alternative' won't ever occur to 95% of them -- so they will go out and buy another copy/key.
Whether or not preventing such causual copying is actually a good idea... that's a completely different topic.