No, but I find it interesting that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has a Windows XP key uploaded in plain text onto a freely accessible ftp server. The government supports piracy!
I can't agree with you more. He was invaluable to the show, and his dynamic with Peter Jurasik was outrageously wonderful/sad/funny/heartfelt/perfect/fill-in-your -praise-here.
Same here. If I could get the same item for the same price without resorting to a rebate, I'd be happier, but I'm more than happy to put up with mailing in a rebate if it means some serious savings. And I've yet to have to strong arm the rebate provider into sending me what I'm due.
Plus, I even got a bonus just the other day from buying an item on rebate: I had a coupon for $15 off a $100 purchase, which I would have never reached had one of the items I was buying not had a sizable rebate connected with it. There's also the occasional advantage of getting free shipping on items "over $25" or whatever the minimum is, when the item you're getting won't actually cost you that much once you get the rebate back. So there are definitely ways to take advantage of the rebate system.
the people who want to know why they should share their bandwidth are the same people who write code for Linux but don't publish it for fear that someone might benifit from their hardwork.
I think that's a poor analogy. I pay for my internet connection, and I get a fixed amount of bandwidth. If I give some of that bandwidth away, that's bandwidth I no longer can use. It's gone. While you could say that allowing one or two people to use it isn't going to affect most people very much, it's still bandwidth that is no longer mine, and the more people who connect, the more likely I, as the person who paid for the connection in the first place, will feel their presence. By writing Linux code and then giving it away freely, I don't "lose" my ability to use that code, or pieces of that code. It's still 100% freely usable to be, and is 100% usable to anyone I share it with. Bandwidth is a finite resource, Linux code--in this example--is not.
So now I can have my wireless traffic sniffed by everyone, everywhere, be obligated to follow their terms of service for a year or face financial penalties, have my bandwidth sapped by others, and potentially face the legal reprocussions of having strangers using my internet connection. All for a miniscule $5. Bonus!!
Routers are so cheap nowadays (I got my wifi router a few years ago for $25, and wired routers regularly go for $5 or $10), why would you want to get one just a tad bit cheaper for the "privilege" of sharing it with others?
If I went there and didn't have to worry too much about losing a scholarship, I'd probably keep my Facebook page and hope they kick me out of my sports so I could get the ACLU to use me as a test case.
Oh you know, research, email, that sort of thing. This may surprise you but the original intent of providing internet access was not to pass around mp3's, pictures of yourself drunk, and porn (well, that last one is debatable).
I completely agree. The purpose of my little commentary (which perhaps was lost) was that if the school really wants to keep people from posting their personal information or embarassing stories of schooltime drunkenness and debauchery on the internet, they're going to have to unplug the ethernet to even hope to have a chance of stemming the tide, because Facebook is far from the only place where they can do it. Saying these kids can't use Facebook is just going to force them to go somewhere else, and as a result is inflammatory, capricious, and above all useless.
After which time you can cancel your contract and get the current "new customer" rate for cable internet. And once that deal is over, go back to DSL as a "new" customer (or try a different DSL provider). Ah the fun of a merry-go-round.
Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman could not be reached for comment. Sources close to Stallman said he was "somewhere underneath Cheyenne Mountain, importing the OpenBSD source tree into the Hurd."
Because we now know that OpenBSD is our *real* last best hope in our fight against the Go'a'uld. And would keep the damn gate computers from crashing every time Anubis decides to bombard them with his evil death rays (read: Microsoft-infecting trojans).
You don't think that the TSA employee was intimidated into being kinder by the fact that there was a guy taking notes 5 feet away behind some plexiglass? By observing a thing, we also inherently change that thing. The test was completely invalidated by the presence of the reporter.
I get your point, but I don't see the similarity between the Alien scene you mention and telling Harrison Ford whether or not his character is a replicant. The replicant thing just doesn't have that same immediate shock value that the Alien scene did.
I would say there's a definite difference acting-wise between a playing a human and a replicant-who-believes-himself-to-be-human. If Ford knew he was playing a replicant, he could have added bits to his performance that foreshadowed it. And if you trust Harrison Ford enough to play the part, you should tell him exactly what part he's playing. Otherwise, what's the point of even having Decker be a replicant at all?
It's like having an actor play a person who has cancer but doesn't know it yet, and not telling the actor "your character is eventually going to be diagnosed with cancer." In that situation, you're not giving the actor the opportunity to have their character "exhibit symptoms," since he doesn't even know his character is supposed to have any symptoms. If Ford knew he was a replicant, he could have exhibited subconscious "symptoms" of being a replicant, and done so knowingly and intelligently.
Why they even bothered to redact it. Usually redacting is used when one side has to produce something through discovery, but portions of it are considered privileged or something to that effect. But this is a Memorandum, drafted entirely by AT&T's lawyers. They could put into it or not put into it whatever they wanted. If they didn't want people to see what was under the black bars, why didn't they just *leave it out*?
Just because some companies spread FUD, doesn't mean that all companies spread FUD.
And just because a company has an interest in the reports they publish doesn't mean the reports are biased. It means they might be biased, and you need to critically analyze what they say with attention to the fact that they have a potential bias. But anyone who writes anything has a bias, because if they weren't interested one way or the other about what they're writing about, they just wouldn't write about it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I find it interesting that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has a Windows XP key uploaded in plain text onto a freely accessible ftp server. The government supports piracy!
I can't agree with you more. He was invaluable to the show, and his dynamic with Peter Jurasik was outrageously wonderful/sad/funny/heartfelt/perfect/fill-in-your -praise-here.
Same here. If I could get the same item for the same price without resorting to a rebate, I'd be happier, but I'm more than happy to put up with mailing in a rebate if it means some serious savings. And I've yet to have to strong arm the rebate provider into sending me what I'm due.
Plus, I even got a bonus just the other day from buying an item on rebate: I had a coupon for $15 off a $100 purchase, which I would have never reached had one of the items I was buying not had a sizable rebate connected with it. There's also the occasional advantage of getting free shipping on items "over $25" or whatever the minimum is, when the item you're getting won't actually cost you that much once you get the rebate back. So there are definitely ways to take advantage of the rebate system.
They're offering free Union wide internet...
It's not free. There is a cost, be it in money, bandwidth, contractual obligation, or whatever. By I thank you for the sentiment.
the people who want to know why they should share their bandwidth are the same people who write code for Linux but don't publish it for fear that someone might benifit from their hardwork.
I think that's a poor analogy. I pay for my internet connection, and I get a fixed amount of bandwidth. If I give some of that bandwidth away, that's bandwidth I no longer can use. It's gone. While you could say that allowing one or two people to use it isn't going to affect most people very much, it's still bandwidth that is no longer mine, and the more people who connect, the more likely I, as the person who paid for the connection in the first place, will feel their presence. By writing Linux code and then giving it away freely, I don't "lose" my ability to use that code, or pieces of that code. It's still 100% freely usable to be, and is 100% usable to anyone I share it with. Bandwidth is a finite resource, Linux code--in this example--is not.
So now I can have my wireless traffic sniffed by everyone, everywhere, be obligated to follow their terms of service for a year or face financial penalties, have my bandwidth sapped by others, and potentially face the legal reprocussions of having strangers using my internet connection. All for a miniscule $5. Bonus!!
Routers are so cheap nowadays (I got my wifi router a few years ago for $25, and wired routers regularly go for $5 or $10), why would you want to get one just a tad bit cheaper for the "privilege" of sharing it with others?
If I went there and didn't have to worry too much about losing a scholarship, I'd probably keep my Facebook page and hope they kick me out of my sports so I could get the ACLU to use me as a test case.
Oh you know, research, email, that sort of thing. This may surprise you but the original intent of providing internet access was not to pass around mp3's, pictures of yourself drunk, and porn (well, that last one is debatable).
I completely agree. The purpose of my little commentary (which perhaps was lost) was that if the school really wants to keep people from posting their personal information or embarassing stories of schooltime drunkenness and debauchery on the internet, they're going to have to unplug the ethernet to even hope to have a chance of stemming the tide, because Facebook is far from the only place where they can do it. Saying these kids can't use Facebook is just going to force them to go somewhere else, and as a result is inflammatory, capricious, and above all useless.
If you don't sign in prior to starting your comment, and you submit your login info at the same time as you are writing your post, you see a CAPTCHA.
Cuz the actors never get it wrong.
P.S. I feel like it's some futurama reference that my CAPTCHA was "breeder." Is Slashdot trying to say something about the human race?
I can't help but hear these words in my head:
"Get it now on DVD and PSP."
And we know how well that turned out (PS What?).
After which time you can cancel your contract and get the current "new customer" rate for cable internet. And once that deal is over, go back to DSL as a "new" customer (or try a different DSL provider). Ah the fun of a merry-go-round.
Tough crowd...
I mean, he did discover that Spyware+Malware=Bad. Give credit where credit is due!
What I want to know is when Google will be able to help me search for my shoes in the morning.
Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman could not be reached for comment. Sources close to Stallman said he was "somewhere underneath Cheyenne Mountain, importing the OpenBSD source tree into the Hurd."
Because we now know that OpenBSD is our *real* last best hope in our fight against the Go'a'uld. And would keep the damn gate computers from crashing every time Anubis decides to bombard them with his evil death rays (read: Microsoft-infecting trojans).
You don't think that the TSA employee was intimidated into being kinder by the fact that there was a guy taking notes 5 feet away behind some plexiglass? By observing a thing, we also inherently change that thing. The test was completely invalidated by the presence of the reporter.
I get your point, but I don't see the similarity between the Alien scene you mention and telling Harrison Ford whether or not his character is a replicant. The replicant thing just doesn't have that same immediate shock value that the Alien scene did.
I would say there's a definite difference acting-wise between a playing a human and a replicant-who-believes-himself-to-be-human. If Ford knew he was playing a replicant, he could have added bits to his performance that foreshadowed it. And if you trust Harrison Ford enough to play the part, you should tell him exactly what part he's playing. Otherwise, what's the point of even having Decker be a replicant at all?
It's like having an actor play a person who has cancer but doesn't know it yet, and not telling the actor "your character is eventually going to be diagnosed with cancer." In that situation, you're not giving the actor the opportunity to have their character "exhibit symptoms," since he doesn't even know his character is supposed to have any symptoms. If Ford knew he was a replicant, he could have exhibited subconscious "symptoms" of being a replicant, and done so knowingly and intelligently.
Why they even bothered to redact it. Usually redacting is used when one side has to produce something through discovery, but portions of it are considered privileged or something to that effect. But this is a Memorandum, drafted entirely by AT&T's lawyers. They could put into it or not put into it whatever they wanted. If they didn't want people to see what was under the black bars, why didn't they just *leave it out*?
Just because some companies spread FUD, doesn't mean that all companies spread FUD.
And just because a company has an interest in the reports they publish doesn't mean the reports are biased. It means they might be biased, and you need to critically analyze what they say with attention to the fact that they have a potential bias. But anyone who writes anything has a bias, because if they weren't interested one way or the other about what they're writing about, they just wouldn't write about it at all.
Sorry you didn't like my analogy. I'll try to make my next one simpler so you have a better chance of understanding its relevance.
By that token should we infer that the effects of playing Frogger will not surface until the player attempts to cross the street?