It's interesting that these cuts focus on earth science and the same satellites that keep us informed about climate changes. One of the thorny issues for this administration has been global warming, and this seems like another case of this administration's approach to problems. Rather than fix the problem, they try to make the problem disappear by attacking or dismantling those who publicize it. Remember Abu Ghraib? The administration's immediate response wasn't, "We're sorry, it'll never happen again." No, it was, "Who were those bastards who released the photos - let's get 'em!" How about the reclassification of thousands of declassified documents? Not to mention the recent censorship of NASA publications by a representative from the White House http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11240405/.
This administration's 'problem solving' and our financial situation highlighted in that article makes me feel like American power is crumbling from the inside out. While continuing to bark, we've lost our bite. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/us.iran.ap/ index.html
0.20 cents for each 128 kbps song
0.40 cents for each 256 kbps song
0.60 cents for each 320 kbps song
0.80 cents for each lossless song
If the entire music industry followed those rules, it would still be price fixing. The prices need to be determined by the market, meaning that music companies should be competing with each other. Since online music prices are inflated, this would almost certainly drive the prices down.
Don't you WANT the government to know how you feel on the issues? Isn't that the point of a democratic society? And your boss? Your church? Why be so afraid to think what you think?
Part of that democratic society is the right to express your opinions anonymously. Why is it that the government goes to great lengths to make sure that your vote remains anonymous? Anonymity protects voters from retribution. Imagine if every voter could be connected to his/her vote. Back in the '50s, if you had voted for a communist candidate even 60 years before, you'd be in big trouble. It's not so difficult to understand the value of privacy in this context.
Samsung realized that they could make a product that's better for their customers than what was being manufactured previously, and took the opportunity to do so. That's all there is to it, really.
I doubt that was Samsung's motivation. In fact, I doubt there was even a motivation. It was probably just a glich in the DVD player. Samsung took the DVD player off the market about a year ago when they were told that "sophisticated users" can bypass the DRM. Saying that Samsung is like a modern day Robin Hood gives them way too much credit.
Seems to me that Verizon's getting Google's content, as well as all the other content on the internet, for free. They then charge their consumers for access to this content. Verizon should be paying content providers for the use of their content.
Obviously, I'm just joking to make a point. With a little thought, anything can be twisted to suit your purposes. For Verizon, that purpose is profit. I hope legislators see through it.
If you'd rather use a search engine that turns a blind eye to abuse and constantly have your results filled with false positives, be my guest.
It's not that anyone wants a search engine that is filled with false positives, but banning a website for its tactics to get a higher ranking is not the best approach to the problem. BMW Germany is taking advantage of a flaw in Google's technology. With all the brainpower in Google's arsenal, it's their job to fix those flaws, not to brainlessly block websites that take advantage of them. If this becomes policy for Google, they can kiss their lead in the search engine wars goodbye.
I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to Open Source software - masquerading as other software is already quite standard. Only closed-source vendors and closed-minded customers have anything to be scared of, and I've no problem with them being scared silly by Homeland Security.
That is ridiculous. Stop being blinded by your hatred of everything Microsoft/closed source and open your eyes. If ISPs get involved in regulating what's on peoples' computers, it's opening up a bag of worms. Besides, who decides what's secure? From what I've seen, nothing is truly secure. Who's to say that in the future, a major corporation with its highly paid lawyers, won't convince some regulatory board that open source software is a security risk? And don't tell me that Linux will just pose as something else. Technology changes, and who knows if it will always be able to do that. For once, Microsoft is on the right side.
This is not a balanced thread. Without clicking to see any of the hidden responses, I didn't see any comments that disagreed with Steve Jobs. Please mod up some comments that agreed with Nitesh Dhanjani to give us a more informative conversation.
it was part of the geek meritocracy--the guys won't talk to you until you prove yourself, and then you won't be able to get them to go away.
Men also have to deal with the geek meritocracy. I started my freshman year of college as a non-geek and slowly transformed over the years. One of my neighbors in the dorm was a full-blown geek from the very beginning and he admitted that when he first met me, he thought I was 'useless.' I must have eventually proved my geekworthiness because we're now good friends.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and I'd guess that more people would find them a better source on the value of anonymity than some guy posting on slashdot.
Talk about taking a quote out of context. I was saying that, in a setting where submissions are expected to be factual, anonymity is counterproductive. The supreme court plays no part in this. Deciding whether to allow anonymous submissions, or even whether to allow submissions at all, is completely the choice of the owners of Wikipedia. Wake up everyone! Submitting to Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and not being allowed to speak annonymously on Wikipedia doesn't keep you from speaking annonymously in other forums.
My guess is that you don't understand or even LIKE the first Ammendment in the US
I love the first ammendment, but freedom of speech is not absolute. If Wikipedia decides that they will regulate the submissions to their site, it is not a violation of freedom of speech. That's like saying that editors have no right to decide what content may be allowed in their newspapers or magazines. They DO make decisions about what is quality content, and what is not. Wikipedia is too large to regulate by deciding which articles to include and which to exclude. By removing anonymity, people will largely act more responsibly. If they don't act responsibly, they can be removed.
Wikipedia is not a forum for opinions, it's an encyclopedia. Everything written in it should be fact. In this context, I believe everyone should be held accountable for what they write. Anonymity is not necessary, and only leads people to act irresponsibly. Anonymity and 'freedom after speech' should be reserved for content that is openly understood to be opinion.
I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time Sony has done something sleezy with their customers' computers. About two years ago I bought a Sony mini-disc player and was forced to install their SonicStage software in order to write music to a disk. Quite suspiciously, my Nero burning software could no longer copy CDs after that. I had to reinstall Nero to get it working again. Since then, I haven't trusted Sony. It represents a lack of respect, and I think all their software should be investigated. Surely, sabotaging millions of computers is a criminal offense.
This means people would have an easy way of knowing where to find porn.
response:
Because nowadays all the porn is really difficult to find?
It's not that people will have an easier time of finding porn (although they may). The important point is that MACHINES will be able to more easily find the porn. Currently it is very difficult for a program to know for sure whether or not a site is porn. This could be one step towards automatic censorship.
So what are you trying to do? Do you want to modify this source todo something new? Do you want to document it, or represent it in some other way? You're still not telling us what you mean by 'reverse engineer'. What is your goal here?
We want to do both. Right now we're at the point where we're trying to document and understand the code. Eventually our goal will be to modify the source to add some features.
I submitted this question. Sorry about any confusion. I have all the code I care about, I can compile and run it, and I'm (unfortunately ) forced to use Visual Studio.Net.
Slashdot Mirror
These NASA cuts are just the tip of what coming up. Americans have spent way too much money; http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=amz.HoNLRL_0&refer=us
/ index.html
It's interesting that these cuts focus on earth science and the same satellites that keep us informed about climate changes. One of the thorny issues for this administration has been global warming, and this seems like another case of this administration's approach to problems. Rather than fix the problem, they try to make the problem disappear by attacking or dismantling those who publicize it. Remember Abu Ghraib? The administration's immediate response wasn't, "We're sorry, it'll never happen again." No, it was, "Who were those bastards who released the photos - let's get 'em!" How about the reclassification of thousands of declassified documents? Not to mention the recent censorship of NASA publications by a representative from the White House http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11240405/.
This administration's 'problem solving' and our financial situation highlighted in that article makes me feel like American power is crumbling from the inside out. While continuing to bark, we've lost our bite. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/us.iran.ap
here is my suggestion:
0.20 cents for each 128 kbps song
0.40 cents for each 256 kbps song
0.60 cents for each 320 kbps song
0.80 cents for each lossless song
If the entire music industry followed those rules, it would still be price fixing. The prices need to be determined by the market, meaning that music companies should be competing with each other. Since online music prices are inflated, this would almost certainly drive the prices down.
Don't you WANT the government to know how you feel on the issues? Isn't that the point of a democratic society? And your boss? Your church? Why be so afraid to think what you think?
Part of that democratic society is the right to express your opinions anonymously. Why is it that the government goes to great lengths to make sure that your vote remains anonymous? Anonymity protects voters from retribution. Imagine if every voter could be connected to his/her vote. Back in the '50s, if you had voted for a communist candidate even 60 years before, you'd be in big trouble. It's not so difficult to understand the value of privacy in this context.
Samsung realized that they could make a product that's better for their customers than what was being manufactured previously, and took the opportunity to do so. That's all there is to it, really.
I doubt that was Samsung's motivation. In fact, I doubt there was even a motivation. It was probably just a glich in the DVD player. Samsung took the DVD player off the market about a year ago when they were told that "sophisticated users" can bypass the DRM. Saying that Samsung is like a modern day Robin Hood gives them way too much credit.
Seems to me that Verizon's getting Google's content, as well as all the other content on the internet, for free. They then charge their consumers for access to this content. Verizon should be paying content providers for the use of their content.
Obviously, I'm just joking to make a point. With a little thought, anything can be twisted to suit your purposes. For Verizon, that purpose is profit. I hope legislators see through it.
If you'd rather use a search engine that turns a blind eye to abuse and constantly have your results filled with false positives, be my guest.
It's not that anyone wants a search engine that is filled with false positives, but banning a website for its tactics to get a higher ranking is not the best approach to the problem. BMW Germany is taking advantage of a flaw in Google's technology. With all the brainpower in Google's arsenal, it's their job to fix those flaws, not to brainlessly block websites that take advantage of them. If this becomes policy for Google, they can kiss their lead in the search engine wars goodbye.
Thank you! Someone had to say it. I'm getting really tired of the Slashdot bias.
I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to Open Source software - masquerading as other software is already quite standard. Only closed-source vendors and closed-minded customers have anything to be scared of, and I've no problem with them being scared silly by Homeland Security.
That is ridiculous. Stop being blinded by your hatred of everything Microsoft/closed source and open your eyes. If ISPs get involved in regulating what's on peoples' computers, it's opening up a bag of worms. Besides, who decides what's secure? From what I've seen, nothing is truly secure. Who's to say that in the future, a major corporation with its highly paid lawyers, won't convince some regulatory board that open source software is a security risk? And don't tell me that Linux will just pose as something else. Technology changes, and who knows if it will always be able to do that. For once, Microsoft is on the right side.
This is not a balanced thread. Without clicking to see any of the hidden responses, I didn't see any comments that disagreed with Steve Jobs. Please mod up some comments that agreed with Nitesh Dhanjani to give us a more informative conversation.
it was part of the geek meritocracy--the guys won't talk to you until you prove yourself, and then you won't be able to get them to go away.
Men also have to deal with the geek meritocracy. I started my freshman year of college as a non-geek and slowly transformed over the years. One of my neighbors in the dorm was a full-blown geek from the very beginning and he admitted that when he first met me, he thought I was 'useless.' I must have eventually proved my geekworthiness because we're now good friends.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and I'd guess that more people would find them a better source on the value of anonymity than some guy posting on slashdot.
Talk about taking a quote out of context. I was saying that, in a setting where submissions are expected to be factual, anonymity is counterproductive. The supreme court plays no part in this. Deciding whether to allow anonymous submissions, or even whether to allow submissions at all, is completely the choice of the owners of Wikipedia. Wake up everyone! Submitting to Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and not being allowed to speak annonymously on Wikipedia doesn't keep you from speaking annonymously in other forums.
My guess is that you don't understand or even LIKE the first Ammendment in the US I love the first ammendment, but freedom of speech is not absolute. If Wikipedia decides that they will regulate the submissions to their site, it is not a violation of freedom of speech. That's like saying that editors have no right to decide what content may be allowed in their newspapers or magazines. They DO make decisions about what is quality content, and what is not. Wikipedia is too large to regulate by deciding which articles to include and which to exclude. By removing anonymity, people will largely act more responsibly. If they don't act responsibly, they can be removed.
Wikipedia is not a forum for opinions, it's an encyclopedia. Everything written in it should be fact. In this context, I believe everyone should be held accountable for what they write. Anonymity is not necessary, and only leads people to act irresponsibly. Anonymity and 'freedom after speech' should be reserved for content that is openly understood to be opinion.
I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time Sony has done something sleezy with their customers' computers. About two years ago I bought a Sony mini-disc player and was forced to install their SonicStage software in order to write music to a disk. Quite suspiciously, my Nero burning software could no longer copy CDs after that. I had to reinstall Nero to get it working again. Since then, I haven't trusted Sony. It represents a lack of respect, and I think all their software should be investigated. Surely, sabotaging millions of computers is a criminal offense.
This means people would have an easy way of knowing where to find porn.
response:
Because nowadays all the porn is really difficult to find?
It's not that people will have an easier time of finding porn (although they may). The important point is that MACHINES will be able to more easily find the porn. Currently it is very difficult for a program to know for sure whether or not a site is porn. This could be one step towards automatic censorship.
So what are you trying to do? Do you want to modify this source todo something new? Do you want to document it, or represent it in some other way? You're still not telling us what you mean by 'reverse engineer'. What is your goal here?
We want to do both. Right now we're at the point where we're trying to document and understand the code. Eventually our goal will be to modify the source to add some features.
I submitted this question. Sorry about any confusion. I have all the code I care about, I can compile and run it, and I'm (unfortunately ) forced to use Visual Studio .Net.