One only has to read this review (unfortunately not April Fool) to determine exactly how much credence to give these guys (he is quoted on the cable site):
The pen is an ordinary red overhead projector pen manufactured by Staedtler under the name Lumocolor. I had several of these pens in my desk at school, but the ones I had contained non-permanent ink, and you need permanent ink. Also, getting the pen directly from Belt is beneficial because it has undergone treatment...
I scoured my CD collection, and found a CD I have two copies of, the La Femme Nikita soundtrack. Prior to altering either of them, I listened to both to determine if they sounded the same, and they did. I set one aside, and wrote my signature followed by "> o.k." on the case of the second one.
When I listened to both copies of the CD again, the results were so startling that I wrote detailed notes. Vocals on the unsigned copy were hard and plastic sounding, and the high notes were razor sharp. I found myself totally distracted, wishing for the song to end. The treated CD, on the other hand, provided beautiful, mellow-sounding vocals. The high notes throughout were subdued, which enabled me to concentrate on the music.
I could go on and on. Obviously there's the 'quantum' joke, but these folk are serious, scarily so.
Add into that jitter, noise, vibration, and any number of other sources of entropy that play in CD burning
Huh? Tell me how jitter and vibration are encoded in digital? The signal is burnt in digital. From a digital source. When played it's converted to analog, and may have issues of noise and interference, but, unless you have the shittiest of shittiest CD drives, it does digital audio output, not those two crappy little cables. Digital bit encoding/decoding of the bits written on the CD, to a computer, which digitally transforms to MP3 by reproducible algorithm. Said data decoded from said algorithm into PCM data and shuffled back onto disc.
Your argument makes no sense, as written. Simple proof would be the fact that most data CDs are not coasters due to "jitter, noise, vibration" affecting the bits written to disc. At its lowest level it is a bit stream, no more, no less.
We've been carping on about the rising share of Firefox. Good for us. At the same time, MSNs hit counts have been rising. I guess that's because MSFT "forces" us to use it through MSIE, right, even though IE usage has been declining, wait, uhh, what?
Face facts, your bitterness aside, MSN is not the third most visited website on the planet because of "IE, shortcuts and ads in the OS". Aside from anything else, "shortcuts and ads"? The last time I saw an short for MSN installed on my desktop by the OS was Windows 98.
Perhaps, but that's a bit simplistic. Sure, Larry and Sergei etc still have an effective death grip, due to the way they issued their shares, but picture this:
"So we had $5B in cash. We're down to $400M, now."
"Where'd it go?"
"Well, we figured it'd be make good business sense to blow ninety two per cent of our cash reserves on a spectrum we'll be sharing with anyone and everyone."
"Wait, you mean you would have had access to it if someone else won?"
"Well, uhh, yeah."
"But you thought it'd be a good idea to spent $4.6 billion for that access?"
"Well, sure, cause we really showed those telco's, huh?"
1. You can do just about anything you want inside the walls of your home. My wife is an artist and that is actually quite important to us. We currently have 75+ guinea pigs (and more coming as the breed like rabbits) for my wifes upcoming show in April. Most landlords I have had were picky about a dog, you can forget 75 guinea pigs.
I'm actually pretty sure that almost anywhere, you're in breach of animal control laws. And wow, just wow. Your wife is breeding animals FOR AN ART SHOW?!? Why don't you try something novel, like, I don't know, animal shelters? Speaking as someone who volunteers at the Humane Society, and sees animals brought in every single day... gah.
Tell us all, what do you actually intend to do with your "75 and more coming" guinea pigs after her little show?!?
Annoy and harass your friends, anyone you find to take them? You don't actually think it's fair to the animals to have 75 of them living in a room, do you?!?
It is. And in general, I could live with that, but I'll give you the example at the time that utterly fucked me off.
I worked for a company, with a generic-ish name, we'll say, for anonymity's sake, "Streetlamp Solutions". We tried to register streetlamp.com.au - no dice - "too generic". We ended up going with streetlampsolutions.com.au. Fine.
News? isn't generic? How come they weren't pushed to register newscorp.com.au? I'm sure any other news/paper/media source in Australia would have killed for that domain. But no, "news" wasn't too generic. Even when you consider, in our industry, people knew us as "streetlamp", and people in Australia know NewsCorp as, well, NewsCorp.
Hence my point, standards and rules were routinely broken for deep pocketbooks, NewsCorp, Orange, etc, there was no consistency.
He didn't sue the family, he sued the/estate/ of the pedestrian. Reasonable enough, if, as you have no idea of knowing, the pedestrian was at fault. Did they step out into a busy street? If it's the pedestrian's fault, are you saying that the driver should suck up the guilt for the rest of his life,/and/ shell out for the damage done?
Should he claim insurance?
Who do you think the insurance company would sue to reimburse their costs? The estate of the pedestrian.
Granted it's an unsavory thought, but if that car was your livelihood, and the accident was not your fault, why in the hell should you not try to recover costs?
It's grim and should be approached with tact, but...
The.au space is pretty tightly governed. For example, for a.com.au you need to be an Australian registered business and provide your Australian Business Number or similar identification; and the domain name needs to either be close or exact match for your business name or "substantially related".
Well, in theory, anyway. In reality, if you had the money and were a big enough name, you could get any.com.au regardless of 'genericity', etc., whereas the small time.com.au company would often have to go through several revisions and "add words" to their company name to provide "further" specificity, all the while you watched companies register like news.com.au etc.
Speaking as someone whose ringtone is not (subjectively) obnoxious, I'd like to point out that many of us take pity on you, walking around like you've a Borg implant in your head with an obnoxious bright blue LED (usually).
Well, my Toyota Prius, whilst nice enough and fully featured enough, has voice activation/control of most in car systems - from the GPS to climate control ("Temperature 72 degrees") to making and receiving calls via Bluetooth connected phone.
Of course they won't have a problem with it. That wasn't my point (a point I recognize as pedantic).:)
It's pretty well known that a sizable percentage of the people with an MSDN subscription will treat it as their personal open license. It's, as you said, a small price to pay. But it'll never be openly accepted and/or encouraged, which leads me to my next point:
ObWarning: as an ex-MSFT-er, I wouldn't take the word of many reps all too seriously, either, though.
Of course they use QT. If you want them to. That's not the point. What about any other program in existence, that can call QT and talk to the net, that you might not expect? It could be a multimedia diary. It could be a demonstration video embedded in a help file. You. Don't. Know. Until you try. And then you've been exposed to potential vulnerabilities. You know, like when you mention how any random app can call IE libraries and expose you to IE vulnerabilities.
Uhh, you couldn't use Netscape exclusively to browse the web? Huh. I guess all those people using Mosaic and Netscape under Win 3.1 were just imagining it right, cause as you say, the big bad bully MSFT was keeping them down.
The point, ultra simple: AS YOU SAID, you don't know what application might use a library that might have vulerabilities. You may know that some applications WILL. You can choose to use or not use them. You may SUSPECT or make an informed guess that an application heavily net-reliant might hit IE libraries, or multimedia-reliant might hit QT libraries. You can choose or take your chances. In other cases you may have no idea. And yet for all your bluster, you haven't pointed out a single reason why this situation, as applied to the Quicktime libraries, is a non-issue, whereas when applied to IE libraries, is suddenly a gaping, festering hole.
Right, because your media center is a development/test environment, is it, and not a cornerstone of your home theater setup, right. I mean, that IS what you agreed when you signed up for your MSDN subscription, right, that those licenses weren't for private use, but for development and testing purposes?
Reminds me of the good old days and Bulletin Boards. You could download all the software you wanted, in ZIP or ARJ/LHA, or both. You could download PKZIP, too, compressed with ARJ/LHA for a quicker download. Don't have ARJ/LHA? No problem, you could download them, compressed with PKZIP.
However, it really makes no sense to associate QuickTime with IE, in large part because there is no anti-competitive basis for QT being integrated into the OS, and no real downside.
Huh? What about the technical downsides? Flaws, security holes, performance? Because we all know IE has had hundreds of security issues, and Quicktime has had none, oh, wait... Then again, this is Apple, and Apple can do no wrong.
If you don't use QT, you can stop updating it and there's no problem. If you don't use IE, you're still in danger of security problems Microsoft built into the design, and applications can invoke the IE plumbing to do things you are not aware of and don't want to happen. QT has none of those problems if you don't choose to use it.
So if I choose not to use IE I am still vulnerable to IE flaws, because other apps can still invoke IE library calls, etc. Right, gotcha. If I choose not to use QT, I have "none of those problems" because, apparently, through the power of telepathy, any other application that might use QT library calls, from Final Cut Pro to After Effects (I seem to recall AE being borked by changes in QT just last week), knows that I've "chosen not to use QT" and its associated library calls, ergo Microsoft is horrible and evil and represents all that is soulless in the world, whilst Apple's genius never ceases to amaze us.
Do you actually believe what you wrote? Because if you were to re-read it, reversing the words QT and IE, or substituting third party libraries, would you still believe it?
Apparently, according to you, you're vulnerable because IE libraries and hooks are used throughout the system - sure, like the help system, etc. Which is why many MS security patches note that "this flaw can still affect you even if you do not use Internet Explorer", and yet Quicktime flaws, well, you don't need to update and fix them, you just "choose not to use them" and magically every other application and OS call on your system is protected?
There ain't nothing more funny than law/students/ pretending they know the law better than law practitioners. Usually there'll be some reference to how the student must know more because they're going to an Ivy, following a quick check on the lawyer's bio at their firms site.
Seriously, Autoadmit reads like the law school version of jocks in the shower talking each other up.
Law Students? Anyone hiring these people needs to seriously check their own ethics.
In an interesting case of come uppance, at least one of the administrators of the board was rejected after an offer was made by a prestigious law firm. Someone let them know of the existence of the forums, they called him in for another interview, asked him about it. A day later, "We appreciate your speaking to us yesterday. Unfortunately, our discussions did not lead to any answers which satisfied us in regards to your involvement with the site, and as a result, we feel we have no choice but to rescind your offer of employment."
The indignation and righteous rage that that caused was quite the ironic sight to see.
I don't have any issue with the people who make the law knowing how the law works. Most people take issue with it because it is far and away the single most easily demonstrable example of a non-representative democracy, as in "lack of cross-section" (though I'm also aware that there doesn't need to inherently be such).
If the lawyer wrote it, you can blame them if it's a total fuck up...)
Nice idea, if optimistically naive. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a claim upheld against your lawyer for misconduct/malfeasance? Generally, incompetence won't do it. It usually needs to be fairly concrete bad faith before you'll get anywhere.
Hint: Politicians are almost always lawyers. As are members of bar associations. Anything that allows you to easily sue your lawyer allows them as lawyers to be easily sued.
In some states, it literally is a case of "show malicious intent" to get anywhere with a malpractice suit.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Tell me how jitter and vibration are encoded in digital? The signal is burnt in digital. From a digital source. When played it's converted to analog, and may have issues of noise and interference, but, unless you have the shittiest of shittiest CD drives, it does digital audio output, not those two crappy little cables. Digital bit encoding/decoding of the bits written on the CD, to a computer, which digitally transforms to MP3 by reproducible algorithm. Said data decoded from said algorithm into PCM data and shuffled back onto disc.
Your argument makes no sense, as written. Simple proof would be the fact that most data CDs are not coasters due to "jitter, noise, vibration" affecting the bits written to disc. At its lowest level it is a bit stream, no more, no less.
We've been carping on about the rising share of Firefox. Good for us. At the same time, MSNs hit counts have been rising. I guess that's because MSFT "forces" us to use it through MSIE, right, even though IE usage has been declining, wait, uhh, what?
Face facts, your bitterness aside, MSN is not the third most visited website on the planet because of "IE, shortcuts and ads in the OS". Aside from anything else, "shortcuts and ads"? The last time I saw an short for MSN installed on my desktop by the OS was Windows 98.
Of course he did.
Of course, he probably also got his MBA from University of Phoenix, but anyway...
"So we had $5B in cash. We're down to $400M, now."
"Where'd it go?"
"Well, we figured it'd be make good business sense to blow ninety two per cent of our cash reserves on a spectrum we'll be sharing with anyone and everyone."
"Wait, you mean you would have had access to it if someone else won?"
"Well, uhh, yeah."
"But you thought it'd be a good idea to spent $4.6 billion for that access?"
"Well, sure, cause we really showed those telco's, huh?"
Wouldn't be because his figures match your argument far more than any of the others, would it?
BTW, they are models, there's no inherent acceptance of those as anything more than hypothesis.
I'm actually pretty sure that almost anywhere, you're in breach of animal control laws. And wow, just wow. Your wife is breeding animals FOR AN ART SHOW?!? Why don't you try something novel, like, I don't know, animal shelters? Speaking as someone who volunteers at the Humane Society, and sees animals brought in every single day... gah.
Tell us all, what do you actually intend to do with your "75 and more coming" guinea pigs after her little show?!?
Annoy and harass your friends, anyone you find to take them? You don't actually think it's fair to the animals to have 75 of them living in a room, do you?!?
Ye gods.
In that case, absolutely. As I had no idea whether we were referring to the same case, I added the qualifiers. :)
I worked for a company, with a generic-ish name, we'll say, for anonymity's sake, "Streetlamp Solutions". We tried to register streetlamp.com.au - no dice - "too generic". We ended up going with streetlampsolutions.com.au. Fine.
News? isn't generic? How come they weren't pushed to register newscorp.com.au? I'm sure any other news/paper/media source in Australia would have killed for that domain. But no, "news" wasn't too generic. Even when you consider, in our industry, people knew us as "streetlamp", and people in Australia know NewsCorp as, well, NewsCorp.
Hence my point, standards and rules were routinely broken for deep pocketbooks, NewsCorp, Orange, etc, there was no consistency.
Should he claim insurance?
Who do you think the insurance company would sue to reimburse their costs? The estate of the pedestrian.
Granted it's an unsavory thought, but if that car was your livelihood, and the accident was not your fault, why in the hell should you not try to recover costs?
It's grim and should be approached with tact, but...
It'd be no more interesting than "it'd be interesting to see if cops ever broke the law".
Well, in theory, anyway. In reality, if you had the money and were a big enough name, you could get any .com.au regardless of 'genericity', etc., whereas the small time .com.au company would often have to go through several revisions and "add words" to their company name to provide "further" specificity, all the while you watched companies register like news.com.au etc.
Speaking as someone whose ringtone is not (subjectively) obnoxious, I'd like to point out that many of us take pity on you, walking around like you've a Borg implant in your head with an obnoxious bright blue LED (usually).
Well, my Toyota Prius, whilst nice enough and fully featured enough, has voice activation/control of most in car systems - from the GPS to climate control ("Temperature 72 degrees") to making and receiving calls via Bluetooth connected phone.
It's pretty well known that a sizable percentage of the people with an MSDN subscription will treat it as their personal open license. It's, as you said, a small price to pay. But it'll never be openly accepted and/or encouraged, which leads me to my next point:
ObWarning: as an ex-MSFT-er, I wouldn't take the word of many reps all too seriously, either, though.
Uhh, you couldn't use Netscape exclusively to browse the web? Huh. I guess all those people using Mosaic and Netscape under Win 3.1 were just imagining it right, cause as you say, the big bad bully MSFT was keeping them down.
The point, ultra simple: AS YOU SAID, you don't know what application might use a library that might have vulerabilities. You may know that some applications WILL. You can choose to use or not use them. You may SUSPECT or make an informed guess that an application heavily net-reliant might hit IE libraries, or multimedia-reliant might hit QT libraries. You can choose or take your chances. In other cases you may have no idea. And yet for all your bluster, you haven't pointed out a single reason why this situation, as applied to the Quicktime libraries, is a non-issue, whereas when applied to IE libraries, is suddenly a gaping, festering hole.
But does anyone really expect you to?
Right, because your media center is a development/test environment, is it, and not a cornerstone of your home theater setup, right. I mean, that IS what you agreed when you signed up for your MSDN subscription, right, that those licenses weren't for private use, but for development and testing purposes?
Uh-oh...
Huh? What about the technical downsides? Flaws, security holes, performance? Because we all know IE has had hundreds of security issues, and Quicktime has had none, oh, wait... Then again, this is Apple, and Apple can do no wrong.
So if I choose not to use IE I am still vulnerable to IE flaws, because other apps can still invoke IE library calls, etc. Right, gotcha. If I choose not to use QT, I have "none of those problems" because, apparently, through the power of telepathy, any other application that might use QT library calls, from Final Cut Pro to After Effects (I seem to recall AE being borked by changes in QT just last week), knows that I've "chosen not to use QT" and its associated library calls, ergo Microsoft is horrible and evil and represents all that is soulless in the world, whilst Apple's genius never ceases to amaze us.
Do you actually believe what you wrote? Because if you were to re-read it, reversing the words QT and IE, or substituting third party libraries, would you still believe it?
Apparently, according to you, you're vulnerable because IE libraries and hooks are used throughout the system - sure, like the help system, etc. Which is why many MS security patches note that "this flaw can still affect you even if you do not use Internet Explorer", and yet Quicktime flaws, well, you don't need to update and fix them, you just "choose not to use them" and magically every other application and OS call on your system is protected?
The RDF field is strong in this one.
Seriously, Autoadmit reads like the law school version of jocks in the shower talking each other up.
In an interesting case of come uppance, at least one of the administrators of the board was rejected after an offer was made by a prestigious law firm. Someone let them know of the existence of the forums, they called him in for another interview, asked him about it. A day later, "We appreciate your speaking to us yesterday. Unfortunately, our discussions did not lead to any answers which satisfied us in regards to your involvement with the site, and as a result, we feel we have no choice but to rescind your offer of employment."
The indignation and righteous rage that that caused was quite the ironic sight to see.
I don't have any issue with the people who make the law knowing how the law works. Most people take issue with it because it is far and away the single most easily demonstrable example of a non-representative democracy, as in "lack of cross-section" (though I'm also aware that there doesn't need to inherently be such).
Nice idea, if optimistically naive. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a claim upheld against your lawyer for misconduct/malfeasance? Generally, incompetence won't do it. It usually needs to be fairly concrete bad faith before you'll get anywhere.
Hint: Politicians are almost always lawyers. As are members of bar associations. Anything that allows you to easily sue your lawyer allows them as lawyers to be easily sued.
In some states, it literally is a case of "show malicious intent" to get anywhere with a malpractice suit.
Cocaine??
So if B injects copyrighted code obtained deceptively into the product you receive - you still have a right to distribute under GPL? I think not.