The courts do have the right to do that, but in this case it doesn't make any sense. The information is already out there, and having Geohot shut up is pretty much only going to help him. There are occasions where it's legitimate, but in this case it seems a bit of a waste of effort.
Really, what we probably ought to have is a "get geohot to shut up" fund before he gets himself into any more trouble, than he already is in.
15 years ago, this would have been a handy feature, now I've got a 24" monitor for my main screen. And even smaller screens are getting harder to find that don't show at least 1280x1024. The time for this sort of change was a long time ago, at this point this sort of thing just serves to annoy people. I can get it when they make it optional or even default, but when they do this it just makes the UI that much harder to learn and work with.
Depends if it's default, optional or mandatory. If it doesn't effect anybody by default, then it's not likely to annoy anybody, but if it's mandatory, that's where you're going to get people upset. I know that Mozilla's been doing some really dumb stuff with the UI lately as well. At least this way I don't have to worry about switching to chrome.
One of the issues I have is that my main computer has 2 monitors, one that's 22" and vertical and another that's 24" and horizontal, a lot of these sorts of stupid changes make it harder for me to use the browser. Such as when Mozilla decided that Firefox shouldn't have a status bar at all.
Personally, I'm fine with them making the default more screen space efficient, but when it gets to the point where they won't let you waste real estate because somebody else doesn't have room, that's in my view a problem. It would be wonderful if instead of this silliness they would focus on things of more broad appeal or at least be sure to allow for an opt out. I mean even MS provided one for some of those stupid UI refresh features in XP.
No matter how many times I see something like that, it never ceases to blow my mind. Kind of reminds me of the time I got called in to remove over 6 thousand bits of malware from a friend's computer. Literally 98% of the processing time was being used by malware.
I think once Youtube goes to WebM that pretty quickly you'll see the rest of the video providers doing so as well. At least for things where they aren't required by contract to use DRM. If for no other reason than they'd not have to spend so much time worrying about whether or not Adobe is going to update the plug in or an update will break the compatibility. Plus, this would open up their site to a lot more platforms without them having to do any work on an ongoing basis.
I hate to break it to you, but Hulu is already trivial to steal from. The fact is that the mechanism they use doesn't make it any more than a minor inconvenience to save their content for later.The main reason it doesn't happen with more frequency is that there isn't much point in doing so.
I'm sorry, but what world do you live in? If 5% of only the copies are pirated, it's not because DRM is super effective, it's because most people are choosing to pay up or not use the program. Once a program is cracked and leaked to a torrent site, there's no way that DRM is going to have any impact on how widely distributed the cracked copies will be.
That's the thing, most professional comedians spend a lot of time developing those jokes before they put them together into one show. And even with a set of jokes that are generally well accepted by audiences, you never know when you're going to bomb. Which is the point, it's poor judgment to go that far out on a limb on a video without testing the material. If he wouldn't do that in front of the kids, that's a pretty good indication that he shouldn't be doing the material.
The jokes most likely to get you in trouble are the ones that you wouldn't tell in front of the person or group that you're mocking.
That's really the problem, the assumption that it needs to be traumatic in order for it to be wrong. The only reason why there's trauma in many of the cases she talks about is because of the degree to which professionals make unsubstantiated assertions about what it's like. The reality is that if there weren't so many messages being sent to kids that if they liked it or weren't completely horrified and traumatized that it's there fault is where the trauma comes from.
You're not going to read an article any shorter than the book and expect to really understand it. She provides a whole bunch of supporting information in the book which you wouldn't have time to cover in the period since I posted.
Unfortunately, in the US that's how it's done. Same goes for sexual abuse in general, the occurrence of a stranger doing it by force only represents a small minority of total cases. But because it's easier to get funding for abuse prevention programs decrying that as the norm, individuals who weren't subjected to such obviously wrong conduct end up doubting that they've got a legitimate right to help.
The Trauma Myth It's a hard read but the author covers the topic far better than I could hope to here.
I think it's that the Chinese people are people that's the problem. People are inherently hypocritical, even those of us that spend lots of time minimizing it. More likely it's because they are an authoritarian regime that they expect to be able to behave like that without consequences, at least at the party level.
Indeed, which is why every once in a while a suit gets filed against God or some other mythological character. The courts usually dismiss such cases more or less immediately when nobody is able to figure out how to serve a warrant to Santa Clause or similar.
Actually, what they can do is seize assets belonging to the Chinese government. I don't think it will take them too long to find assets that they can seize. Now, if China didn't have any investment or economic activity in the US, you'd be correct, but the court can order the Federal government to fork over the appropriate funds next time the Chinese government tries to redeem some bonds.
Death panels. At no point was there a provision for death panels in the health care reform package. Nobody has been able to point to the language at any point, and yet well after it was settled as not being in the bill, Fox chooses to resurrect the claim. Fox News Finally Admits There Are No Death Panels
Remember this is the same "news" organization that went to court defending their right to make up news for ratings.
Actually, they don't have to fairly compensate the owner, and often times they don't. If a project requires some land, typically they'll condemn the portion they need then pay pennies on the dollar for it. Additionally, sometimes they decide that something is necessary for national security purposes and pay a fraction of what it's worth.
I'd personally rather they paid something resembling a fair price, because I have no way of knowing when such a provision might strike me, but that's how it ends up being done so as not to require the tax payers to pay the full cost.
If you're giving them your password in this case, then you're giving them permission. This fails to fall under the typical terms of duress, so I doubt that you'd get anywhere in court unless you refused and they retaliated against you for refusing. And even there, I'm not really sure if that would fly in court.
The reason you don't give people your password for sites is because you don't want to give them permission to use the log in. Now, if they were to come across your log in information on a sticky note on your monitor, that's a bit different. Stupid yes, but no reasonable person would conclude that it represents permission to access the site.
If you apply for a job like that then they do a much more extensive background check than they would normally do. That being said, this is clearly way over the line of acceptable. The furthest I could imagine being justifiable would be requiring an applicant to show the materials, and even then that's really quite questionable and not something that I would have been willing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
That hasn't been true in quite a while. By the time they released the Slim, they were already making a profit on each console sold.
The courts do have the right to do that, but in this case it doesn't make any sense. The information is already out there, and having Geohot shut up is pretty much only going to help him. There are occasions where it's legitimate, but in this case it seems a bit of a waste of effort.
Really, what we probably ought to have is a "get geohot to shut up" fund before he gets himself into any more trouble, than he already is in.
Hmm, It's probably a mistake but I will give you my IP, it's 127.0.0.1
Seriously, given all the people using email that don't know when to use BCC rather than CC or vice versa, I'm surprised it hasn't already been yanked.
Que?
15 years ago, this would have been a handy feature, now I've got a 24" monitor for my main screen. And even smaller screens are getting harder to find that don't show at least 1280x1024. The time for this sort of change was a long time ago, at this point this sort of thing just serves to annoy people. I can get it when they make it optional or even default, but when they do this it just makes the UI that much harder to learn and work with.
Depends if it's default, optional or mandatory. If it doesn't effect anybody by default, then it's not likely to annoy anybody, but if it's mandatory, that's where you're going to get people upset. I know that Mozilla's been doing some really dumb stuff with the UI lately as well. At least this way I don't have to worry about switching to chrome.
One of the issues I have is that my main computer has 2 monitors, one that's 22" and vertical and another that's 24" and horizontal, a lot of these sorts of stupid changes make it harder for me to use the browser. Such as when Mozilla decided that Firefox shouldn't have a status bar at all.
Personally, I'm fine with them making the default more screen space efficient, but when it gets to the point where they won't let you waste real estate because somebody else doesn't have room, that's in my view a problem. It would be wonderful if instead of this silliness they would focus on things of more broad appeal or at least be sure to allow for an opt out. I mean even MS provided one for some of those stupid UI refresh features in XP.
No matter how many times I see something like that, it never ceases to blow my mind. Kind of reminds me of the time I got called in to remove over 6 thousand bits of malware from a friend's computer. Literally 98% of the processing time was being used by malware.
I think once Youtube goes to WebM that pretty quickly you'll see the rest of the video providers doing so as well. At least for things where they aren't required by contract to use DRM. If for no other reason than they'd not have to spend so much time worrying about whether or not Adobe is going to update the plug in or an update will break the compatibility. Plus, this would open up their site to a lot more platforms without them having to do any work on an ongoing basis.
I hate to break it to you, but Hulu is already trivial to steal from. The fact is that the mechanism they use doesn't make it any more than a minor inconvenience to save their content for later.The main reason it doesn't happen with more frequency is that there isn't much point in doing so.
I'm sorry, but what world do you live in? If 5% of only the copies are pirated, it's not because DRM is super effective, it's because most people are choosing to pay up or not use the program. Once a program is cracked and leaked to a torrent site, there's no way that DRM is going to have any impact on how widely distributed the cracked copies will be.
StreamTransport I'm not sure how much more user friendly you can get.
That's the thing, most professional comedians spend a lot of time developing those jokes before they put them together into one show. And even with a set of jokes that are generally well accepted by audiences, you never know when you're going to bomb. Which is the point, it's poor judgment to go that far out on a limb on a video without testing the material. If he wouldn't do that in front of the kids, that's a pretty good indication that he shouldn't be doing the material.
The jokes most likely to get you in trouble are the ones that you wouldn't tell in front of the person or group that you're mocking.
That's really the problem, the assumption that it needs to be traumatic in order for it to be wrong. The only reason why there's trauma in many of the cases she talks about is because of the degree to which professionals make unsubstantiated assertions about what it's like. The reality is that if there weren't so many messages being sent to kids that if they liked it or weren't completely horrified and traumatized that it's there fault is where the trauma comes from.
You're not going to read an article any shorter than the book and expect to really understand it. She provides a whole bunch of supporting information in the book which you wouldn't have time to cover in the period since I posted.
Unfortunately, in the US that's how it's done. Same goes for sexual abuse in general, the occurrence of a stranger doing it by force only represents a small minority of total cases. But because it's easier to get funding for abuse prevention programs decrying that as the norm, individuals who weren't subjected to such obviously wrong conduct end up doubting that they've got a legitimate right to help.
The Trauma Myth It's a hard read but the author covers the topic far better than I could hope to here.
I think it's that the Chinese people are people that's the problem. People are inherently hypocritical, even those of us that spend lots of time minimizing it. More likely it's because they are an authoritarian regime that they expect to be able to behave like that without consequences, at least at the party level.
Indeed, which is why every once in a while a suit gets filed against God or some other mythological character. The courts usually dismiss such cases more or less immediately when nobody is able to figure out how to serve a warrant to Santa Clause or similar.
Actually, what they can do is seize assets belonging to the Chinese government. I don't think it will take them too long to find assets that they can seize. Now, if China didn't have any investment or economic activity in the US, you'd be correct, but the court can order the Federal government to fork over the appropriate funds next time the Chinese government tries to redeem some bonds.
Death panels. At no point was there a provision for death panels in the health care reform package. Nobody has been able to point to the language at any point, and yet well after it was settled as not being in the bill, Fox chooses to resurrect the claim. Fox News Finally Admits There Are No Death Panels
Remember this is the same "news" organization that went to court defending their right to make up news for ratings.
Actually, they don't have to fairly compensate the owner, and often times they don't. If a project requires some land, typically they'll condemn the portion they need then pay pennies on the dollar for it. Additionally, sometimes they decide that something is necessary for national security purposes and pay a fraction of what it's worth.
I'd personally rather they paid something resembling a fair price, because I have no way of knowing when such a provision might strike me, but that's how it ends up being done so as not to require the tax payers to pay the full cost.
If you're giving them your password in this case, then you're giving them permission. This fails to fall under the typical terms of duress, so I doubt that you'd get anywhere in court unless you refused and they retaliated against you for refusing. And even there, I'm not really sure if that would fly in court.
The reason you don't give people your password for sites is because you don't want to give them permission to use the log in. Now, if they were to come across your log in information on a sticky note on your monitor, that's a bit different. Stupid yes, but no reasonable person would conclude that it represents permission to access the site.
Which works as long as you don't have any photos of yourself or your friends and no people you actually know friended. In other words not so well.
If you apply for a job like that then they do a much more extensive background check than they would normally do. That being said, this is clearly way over the line of acceptable. The furthest I could imagine being justifiable would be requiring an applicant to show the materials, and even then that's really quite questionable and not something that I would have been willing to do.
To be fair, Fox does sprinkle in known lies pretty liberally.