It is a difficult task to discriminate legally between the mode of display of a rendering means [browser] incapable of displaying visual ads/versus/ a mode of display of a rendering means modified so as not to display ads.
Stop making up law. It's well established that the user has fair use rights to do with content as they see fit, as long as they don't redistribute.
...because whoever is in charge of it does such a crummy job of explaining what it is and why I should care, and more importantly, why my folks should care.
I think the people pushing IPv6 are doing the best they can do. The fact is IPv6 is a technology waiting for a resource crunch that is a couple of years away. As a consumer, you should just demand that any network products you buy like routers or cable modems are IPv6 ready. Other than that, just wait.
In my area there are two stores within 5 minutes of each other. One has low prices without annoying tracking cards, the other is more expensive with occasional card deals. The former store actually advertises that they have low prices without cards. Guess which store I choose to visit?
Seriously, I hate this attitude of just giving in to living in a total-information tracking state. Fuck that. You be one of the sheep. I'll try to keep my privacy and encourage others to do the same.
Microsoft since it's inception has been a deceptive, double-dealing company. Remember how MS-DOS got started?
Gates referred IBM to the right guy for the OS. That guy's wife flubbed it and Microsoft picked up the ball. Boo hoo.
Microsoft has NEVER excelled technically.
You're mistaken. They made a name for themselves with their own BASIC compiler. They had some luck with the DOS deal, but being successful means taking advantages of opportunities, which they did.
Oracle and Microsoft are in two totally different markets. They both fall under software, but Microsoft's main baby is the Windows OS for both home desktop and server, whereas Oracle is trying to become #1 in providing a total solution in enterprise software.
You've got to be kidding me. Microsoft has been heavily encroaching into enterprise markets since the 1990s. SQL Server doesn't compete with Oracle? Microsoft is very big on offering full-stack, integrated solutions, choking off competitors like Oracle. There are lots of "Microsoft shops" around.
Nope. Wikipedia became -- as I perfectly predicted -- a horrible joke of itself.
Lots of people make unsubstantiated claims about predictions they have made on Slashdot. Welcome to the club.
"Everyone can edit" is dead and gone forever. A ruling class has established. And they are controlling Wikipedia reality and laws now.
Most articles everyone can edit. The ruling class was always there from the beginning, wasn't it? There were always admins.
I mean, sure, we all had a strong wishful thinking syndrome. I quite possibly was one of Wikipedia's strongest defenders. But I soon realize how stupid and ridiculous it really is.
I come from the opposite direction. I thought the whole idea was crazy at the beginning. I thought no way would it work. Yet it just keeps getting better and better as time goes on.
I mean what other community allows anyone to anonymously write whatever he thinks he's right? 4chan. We should have looked at how that turned out.^^
And yet Wikipedia is the exact opposite of 4chan.
My best shot at fixing this, would implement the possibility for an infinite cascading views [like CSS cascading rules are creating the final layout] for one article, and reality-relationship models, where you could choose who to trust on what subjects (also in a cascading manner [again, like CSS rules]).
I don't see how you're going to get a cohesive document this way. Tons of edits are by anonymous and one-time editors. How on earth would an ad hoc selection of trusted users produce something intelligible?
I think the system now is (mostly) fine. If you want to see controversial items you can look at the history and the discussion pages. The only thing that concerns me is that too many decisions are made behind closed doors. That's totally against Wikipedia's founding principles.
The common answer by scientists is quite unconvincing, and what it really amounts to is "sorry, can't explain it, the equations don't go back any further". A year or two ago I saw a Hawking video (covered on Slashdot) where he actually addressed this question as part of the presentation, and he gave the answer as a joke along the lines that God created Hell for people who asked such questions.
And when I made the prediction, the consensus here on Slashdot [slashdot.org] seemed to be that it was a terrible idea.
I think that's selective reading on your part. I just read that story at +3 or better, and there was lots of mixed commentary, from positive to negative to neutral speculation about what such a buyout would result in. Only two or three posts flatly rejected it.
And you're being "un-American" and treasonous when you don't support the war on terror, because doing so gives aid and comfort to the terrorists. The New York Times was guilty of treason when they blew the cover on the wiretap program. Obama committed treason by releasing the torture memos.
Do you like this kind of specious reasoning? Treason is Benedict Arnold. It is not politicians running amok.
E.g., Telia has a 50+ Mbps guarantee and Bredbandsbolaget has a 60+ Mbps guarantee.
What do these "guarantees" mean? Are these the rates they get if nobody else happens to be using the line at the same time? What if everybody was running torrent 24/7, what rates would people see?
There also should be an exact description of what 'commercially driven' is, after all, if you download something instead of buying a paid version, you are commercially driven - you want to avoid paying money.
Perhaps the owners and investors of the site were making big money in advertising. If they weren't commercially driven, they should have set up a non-profit and been very open about their finances. Instead, they had off-shore accounts and have been very secretive. If these guys ended up making millions in profit, do you think they wouldn't keep the money? They might have even started it without thinking about making a profit, but once the potential is there most people look to cash in. You've been duped by these guys.
I do admit these guys had balls, they were brazen and took a risk, but they've lost the first round.
By showing our distaste and by acting against those foreign companies in boycotting their products in our own countries, by pressuring our governments to also stop catering to these companies there is still a lot we can do.
Local governments are just enforcing the international copyright treaty they agreed to. I'm sure ABBA wants to get paid by foreigners just as much as they want to get paid by Swedes.
But i personally see this outcome as a *big* win. [...] From this verdict, we should think that a single individual, with a normal downloading activity, will be never hold responsible for any damage to the music/video industry.
This attitude is exactly why the RIAA went after individuals.
Spinning magnetic storage is not a backup. If you want to use magnetic storage for backups, use DLT or LTO tape
So, how do you read and write to those magnetic storage tapes? Do you spin them?
Seriously, use whatever the hell you want, just make sure you have multiple copies at different sites, and regularly check that you can still access the data with checksums. Two online hard drives (or whatever they use -- the point is you don't care) at different providers is a great strategy.
That's all you've done in your replies. I said it was a minor improvement to start with, and told you the reasons why it was minor. I pointed out how your initial post gave a very wrong impression about what Google did versus the concurrent utilities. You haven't show any evidence that backed up your initial post. You sound like an inexperienced noob confusing Javascript with Java with regards to threading.
I've just realized that this whole argument is about a hypothetical. The Google white list does include Threads. Too bad.
Too bad for you a highly modded comment explains your error: "A Java application cannot create a new java.lang.ThreadGroup nor a new java.lang.Thread. These restrictions also apply to JRE classes that make use of threads. For example, an application cannot create a new java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor, or a java.util.Timer. An application can perform operations against the current thread, such as Thread.currentThread().dumpStack()."
So really, what we're arguing about is whether Google App should support every single class in the Java SE core class list.
No, that was the high-level argument that started this story. What we are arguing about is your comments with regards to Java threading, and the benefits of the concurrent package.
What compelling argument did you make? You don't understand the issues with threads. I pointed them out to you, yet you still think this minor library compares to Google removing threads (including any ability to start them via the concurrent utilities you are talking about).
Slashdot Mirror
what's the problem with that? It's his extension, are you really too much of a cheap bastard to reward him for his work.
Maybe he should just help himself to my online bank account as well. He crossed the line, right up there with Sony and their rootkit.
It is a difficult task to discriminate legally between the mode of display of a rendering means [browser] incapable of displaying visual ads /versus/ a mode of display of a rendering means modified so as not to display ads.
Stop making up law. It's well established that the user has fair use rights to do with content as they see fit, as long as they don't redistribute.
...because whoever is in charge of it does such a crummy job of explaining what it is and why I should care, and more importantly, why my folks should care.
I think the people pushing IPv6 are doing the best they can do. The fact is IPv6 is a technology waiting for a resource crunch that is a couple of years away. As a consumer, you should just demand that any network products you buy like routers or cable modems are IPv6 ready. Other than that, just wait.
Feel free to stop buying food.
In my area there are two stores within 5 minutes of each other. One has low prices without annoying tracking cards, the other is more expensive with occasional card deals. The former store actually advertises that they have low prices without cards. Guess which store I choose to visit?
Seriously, I hate this attitude of just giving in to living in a total-information tracking state. Fuck that. You be one of the sheep. I'll try to keep my privacy and encourage others to do the same.
Microsoft since it's inception has been a deceptive, double-dealing company. Remember how MS-DOS got started?
Gates referred IBM to the right guy for the OS. That guy's wife flubbed it and Microsoft picked up the ball. Boo hoo.
Microsoft has NEVER excelled technically.
You're mistaken. They made a name for themselves with their own BASIC compiler. They had some luck with the DOS deal, but being successful means taking advantages of opportunities, which they did.
Oracle and Microsoft are in two totally different markets. They both fall under software, but Microsoft's main baby is the Windows OS for both home desktop and server, whereas Oracle is trying to become #1 in providing a total solution in enterprise software.
You've got to be kidding me. Microsoft has been heavily encroaching into enterprise markets since the 1990s. SQL Server doesn't compete with Oracle? Microsoft is very big on offering full-stack, integrated solutions, choking off competitors like Oracle. There are lots of "Microsoft shops" around.
Nope. Wikipedia became -- as I perfectly predicted -- a horrible joke of itself.
Lots of people make unsubstantiated claims about predictions they have made on Slashdot. Welcome to the club.
"Everyone can edit" is dead and gone forever. A ruling class has established. And they are controlling Wikipedia reality and laws now.
Most articles everyone can edit. The ruling class was always there from the beginning, wasn't it? There were always admins.
I mean, sure, we all had a strong wishful thinking syndrome. I quite possibly was one of Wikipedia's strongest defenders. But I soon realize how stupid and ridiculous it really is.
I come from the opposite direction. I thought the whole idea was crazy at the beginning. I thought no way would it work. Yet it just keeps getting better and better as time goes on.
I mean what other community allows anyone to anonymously write whatever he thinks he's right? 4chan. We should have looked at how that turned out.^^
And yet Wikipedia is the exact opposite of 4chan.
My best shot at fixing this, would implement the possibility for an infinite cascading views [like CSS cascading rules are creating the final layout] for one article, and reality-relationship models, where you could choose who to trust on what subjects (also in a cascading manner [again, like CSS rules]).
I don't see how you're going to get a cohesive document this way. Tons of edits are by anonymous and one-time editors. How on earth would an ad hoc selection of trusted users produce something intelligible?
I think the system now is (mostly) fine. If you want to see controversial items you can look at the history and the discussion pages. The only thing that concerns me is that too many decisions are made behind closed doors. That's totally against Wikipedia's founding principles.
The common answer by scientists is quite unconvincing, and what it really amounts to is "sorry, can't explain it, the equations don't go back any further". A year or two ago I saw a Hawking video (covered on Slashdot) where he actually addressed this question as part of the presentation, and he gave the answer as a joke along the lines that God created Hell for people who asked such questions.
Well, why SHOULD have Microsoft placed a bid for Sun?
To kill Java or turn it into a dotNET zombie. Would have been interesting.
And when I made the prediction, the consensus here on Slashdot [slashdot.org] seemed to be that it was a terrible idea.
I think that's selective reading on your part. I just read that story at +3 or better, and there was lots of mixed commentary, from positive to negative to neutral speculation about what such a buyout would result in. Only two or three posts flatly rejected it.
It was great the way they repaid Alan Turing for his service. Did those fuckers ever officially apologize?
By your logic any constitutionally illegal act is treason. That's specious and is not what the framers intended.
And you're being "un-American" and treasonous when you don't support the war on terror, because doing so gives aid and comfort to the terrorists. The New York Times was guilty of treason when they blew the cover on the wiretap program. Obama committed treason by releasing the torture memos.
Do you like this kind of specious reasoning? Treason is Benedict Arnold. It is not politicians running amok.
The "unbreakable" term is really just marketing.
Fraudulent marketing. It's like claiming a watch is water proof when water can leak in.
Say what you will, but lots of countries enforce copyright. It's not like the United States is some lone copyright crusader.
I suppose you actually think copyright infringement is a right too, right?
I suppose you think the whole world is under US jurisdiction, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_treaties
E.g., Telia has a 50+ Mbps guarantee and Bredbandsbolaget has a 60+ Mbps guarantee.
What do these "guarantees" mean? Are these the rates they get if nobody else happens to be using the line at the same time? What if everybody was running torrent 24/7, what rates would people see?
This is exactly what I thought would happen, a large civil judgement, as I predicted in the original linked /. thread.
Did you predict it? Link or it didn't happen. I stupidly wasted my time searching through the original thread and didn't see a post by you.
Why did you cut off the ", but it does just that." part?
There also should be an exact description of what 'commercially driven' is, after all, if you download something instead of buying a paid version, you are commercially driven - you want to avoid paying money.
Perhaps the owners and investors of the site were making big money in advertising. If they weren't commercially driven, they should have set up a non-profit and been very open about their finances. Instead, they had off-shore accounts and have been very secretive. If these guys ended up making millions in profit, do you think they wouldn't keep the money? They might have even started it without thinking about making a profit, but once the potential is there most people look to cash in. You've been duped by these guys.
I do admit these guys had balls, they were brazen and took a risk, but they've lost the first round.
By showing our distaste and by acting against those foreign companies in boycotting their products in our own countries, by pressuring our governments to also stop catering to these companies there is still a lot we can do.
Local governments are just enforcing the international copyright treaty they agreed to. I'm sure ABBA wants to get paid by foreigners just as much as they want to get paid by Swedes.
But i personally see this outcome as a *big* win. [...] From this verdict, we should think that a single individual, with a normal downloading activity, will be never hold responsible for any damage to the music/video industry.
This attitude is exactly why the RIAA went after individuals.
Spinning magnetic storage is not a backup. If you want to use magnetic storage for backups, use DLT or LTO tape
So, how do you read and write to those magnetic storage tapes? Do you spin them?
Seriously, use whatever the hell you want, just make sure you have multiple copies at different sites, and regularly check that you can still access the data with checksums. Two online hard drives (or whatever they use -- the point is you don't care) at different providers is a great strategy.
Just saying "you're wrong" wastes both our time.
That's all you've done in your replies. I said it was a minor improvement to start with, and told you the reasons why it was minor. I pointed out how your initial post gave a very wrong impression about what Google did versus the concurrent utilities. You haven't show any evidence that backed up your initial post. You sound like an inexperienced noob confusing Javascript with Java with regards to threading.
I've just realized that this whole argument is about a hypothetical. The Google white list does include Threads. Too bad.
Too bad for you a highly modded comment explains your error: "A Java application cannot create a new java.lang.ThreadGroup nor a new java.lang.Thread. These restrictions also apply to JRE classes that make use of threads. For example, an application cannot create a new java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor, or a java.util.Timer. An application can perform operations against the current thread, such as Thread.currentThread().dumpStack()."
So really, what we're arguing about is whether Google App should support every single class in the Java SE core class list.
No, that was the high-level argument that started this story. What we are arguing about is your comments with regards to Java threading, and the benefits of the concurrent package.
What compelling argument did you make? You don't understand the issues with threads. I pointed them out to you, yet you still think this minor library compares to Google removing threads (including any ability to start them via the concurrent utilities you are talking about).