No, that's what the US government WANTS you to think. Try escaping from what you've been brainwashed into believing for a moment and think rationally about whether all of the thousands of "terrorists" are all so crazy that they just have a simple hatred of freedom, or want to kill you (and themselves, in the process) just because they're jealous of "your freedom".
"Terrorists" (aka "freedom fighters", when they're not fighting the US) are not crazy. Typically, they're well-educated and fairly well-off. Most of the "terrorist attacks" in the past couple of decades have been motivated by the foreign occupation of a country where there are religious differences between the occupiers and the people that live in that country.
I bet that if Iraq were to occupy the US for even a single day, you'd see ten times as many attacks on Iraqi occupiers by Americans than you would see on a bad day in Baghdad. No country likes being invaded. Treat others as you want to be treated.
What a load of crap. The US claims to have frozen most of Bin Laden's assets and cut him off from any money he had. It's very unlikely that his money is helping him much. That is, at least, if you believe the US government.
Recently, the Gaim developers have started to separate the core code--which handles things such as network connections and messaging--from the GUI code, which controls how these actions are presented to the user. After the code split is complete, it will be possible to write client programs using a developer's GUI library of choice. The core library produced by the split will be called libgaim; an in-development but stable version of this library is already in use in the Adium, Fire, and Proteus clients as well as the Meebo web-based application.
So, in other words, AOL are going to have something much more limited than libgaim (AIM protocol only) available in the "near future"? Uhhh... congratulations AOL! Now bugger off, you jerk-burgers!
What previous article? Oh, you mean the one on Digg. Yes, it seems as though visiting Digg can help you to predict what will appear on Slashdot the following day! I've seen at least 10 duplicate articles first appear on Digg, then on Slashdot the next day. I guess it's useful if you want your Slashdot submissions to go through.
If you use a book a lot and would happily recommend it to others, then maybe you should rate it more highly than a 4 out of 10.
I see your point, about just one bit of the book possibly being brilliant while the rest of it is shit, but how many books are like that? I find that books tend to be quite consistent in quality all the way through. Have you got any examples of shit books that have small, brilliant bits in them?
Here's the video on Google Video. Google Video's streaming works better than other sites' streaming, and they generally let you download the video as an MPEG-2, as well. You may need to rename the ".gvi" file to ".avi", they rename it for some silly reason.
Yeah, but Google was revolutionary. For once, almost all searches returned relevant results on the very first search. It was so good, that a lot of the time you could get away with hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. If Altavista had an "I'm feeling lucky" button, it would have taken you to total crap most of the time.
What is MS(N) going to do that is revolutionary, considering that the relevancy of Google's results is close enough to perfection that any improvement would only seem marginal? Altavista's relevancy left a lot to be desired, Google's doesn't.
It's possible that MS(N) will come up with something, but it had better be more than a search engine "as good as Google plus the chance to win prizes".
I'm not Lawrence Lessig, but what you suggest is an unreasonable scenario. No one would ever go to all that trouble just to copy a few books.
That's like suggesting that serial killers could go out and find drunk people who will attack them, so that they can claim they killed in "self-defence".
In recent years, "legal content" has gone from VCD to DVD, and now to HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
What's the message that "consumers" should get out of this? If you want your "content" to still be playable in 5, 10, 20 years from now, download it from Bittorrent in XviD format. Everything else is an inferior product.
"How can software truly be free (as in speech) when you place these sorts of restrictions on people who want to use it? Make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments you wish -- it's just wankery."
It is a restriction, but it ensures that everyone else has the exact same rights as Apple do. Apple wanted to take this source code and make yet another program where people are not free to do whatever they want with it.
In other words, Apple wanted permission to use the source completely as they wished, so that they could stop other people from doing the same. The GPL has a clause that prevents them from doing this. If they keep the binary version of the program to themselves, then they don't have to comply with any of the GPL.
Google have a vested interest in the web being as standards-compliant as possible. If every website suddenly became a combination of Macromedia Flash and GIF logos without any "alt" attributes, Google would suddenly become rather useless, and it would be a difficult task to make it useful again. They'd have to start scanning through any text that is in the data portion of Flash files, or something.
Google should be encouraging people to be as standards compliant as possible.
Microsoft.com validates, but Google should recognise that Microsoft are capable of doing some good things.
Slashdot Mirror
He hates us for our freedom.
No, that's what the US government WANTS you to think. Try escaping from what you've been brainwashed into believing for a moment and think rationally about whether all of the thousands of "terrorists" are all so crazy that they just have a simple hatred of freedom, or want to kill you (and themselves, in the process) just because they're jealous of "your freedom".
"Terrorists" (aka "freedom fighters", when they're not fighting the US) are not crazy. Typically, they're well-educated and fairly well-off. Most of the "terrorist attacks" in the past couple of decades have been motivated by the foreign occupation of a country where there are religious differences between the occupiers and the people that live in that country.
I bet that if Iraq were to occupy the US for even a single day, you'd see ten times as many attacks on Iraqi occupiers by Americans than you would see on a bad day in Baghdad. No country likes being invaded. Treat others as you want to be treated.
What a load of crap. The US claims to have frozen most of Bin Laden's assets and cut him off from any money he had. It's very unlikely that his money is helping him much. That is, at least, if you believe the US government.
They're coming after you, now.
From the Gaim Wikipedia article:
Recently, the Gaim developers have started to separate the core code--which handles things such as network connections and messaging--from the GUI code, which controls how these actions are presented to the user. After the code split is complete, it will be possible to write client programs using a developer's GUI library of choice. The core library produced by the split will be called libgaim; an in-development but stable version of this library is already in use in the Adium, Fire, and Proteus clients as well as the Meebo web-based application.
So, in other words, AOL are going to have something much more limited than libgaim (AIM protocol only) available in the "near future"? Uhhh... congratulations AOL! Now bugger off, you jerk-burgers!
What previous article? Oh, you mean the one on Digg. Yes, it seems as though visiting Digg can help you to predict what will appear on Slashdot the following day! I've seen at least 10 duplicate articles first appear on Digg, then on Slashdot the next day. I guess it's useful if you want your Slashdot submissions to go through.
If you use a book a lot and would happily recommend it to others, then maybe you should rate it more highly than a 4 out of 10.
I see your point, about just one bit of the book possibly being brilliant while the rest of it is shit, but how many books are like that? I find that books tend to be quite consistent in quality all the way through. Have you got any examples of shit books that have small, brilliant bits in them?
Maybe this could work for bank accounts, too.
Well, Xerox thinks Apple is 20 years behind. I, however, think they're all at least 30 years behind.
Even I am probably around 23 years behind, and even as I type it, this comment is 15 years behind!
We've got some serious catching up to do if we want to compete with The Martians.
$300 + 10 years worth of interest? I don't think so.
... click on the "download" button. Depending on your OS, it will take you to "TheSimpsonsIntro.avi" (Linux) or "TheSimpsonsIntro.gvi" (Windows).
Here's the video on Google Video. Google Video's streaming works better than other sites' streaming, and they generally let you download the video as an MPEG-2, as well. You may need to rename the ".gvi" file to ".avi", they rename it for some silly reason.
It is good to be audited by your friends.
Yeah, but Google was revolutionary. For once, almost all searches returned relevant results on the very first search. It was so good, that a lot of the time you could get away with hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. If Altavista had an "I'm feeling lucky" button, it would have taken you to total crap most of the time.
What is MS(N) going to do that is revolutionary, considering that the relevancy of Google's results is close enough to perfection that any improvement would only seem marginal? Altavista's relevancy left a lot to be desired, Google's doesn't.
It's possible that MS(N) will come up with something, but it had better be more than a search engine "as good as Google plus the chance to win prizes".
It's 1 million ARTICLES, not edits. 1 million edits was hit long ago.
I'm not Lawrence Lessig, but what you suggest is an unreasonable scenario. No one would ever go to all that trouble just to copy a few books.
That's like suggesting that serial killers could go out and find drunk people who will attack them, so that they can claim they killed in "self-defence".
In recent years, "legal content" has gone from VCD to DVD, and now to HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
What's the message that "consumers" should get out of this? If you want your "content" to still be playable in 5, 10, 20 years from now, download it from Bittorrent in XviD format. Everything else is an inferior product.
Specifications are more valuable than drivers. I don't think most Linux users want support, they just want hardware that has a chance of working.
Well, they are being fucked by Apple, but they gave Apple permission to do it to them.
"How can software truly be free (as in speech) when you place these sorts of restrictions on people who want to use it? Make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments you wish -- it's just wankery."
It is a restriction, but it ensures that everyone else has the exact same rights as Apple do. Apple wanted to take this source code and make yet another program where people are not free to do whatever they want with it.
In other words, Apple wanted permission to use the source completely as they wished, so that they could stop other people from doing the same. The GPL has a clause that prevents them from doing this. If they keep the binary version of the program to themselves, then they don't have to comply with any of the GPL.
Maybe they should. Some sites have been sued because their websites were not easily accessible (didn't validate) for seeing-impaired users.
Google have a vested interest in the web being as standards-compliant as possible. If every website suddenly became a combination of Macromedia Flash and GIF logos without any "alt" attributes, Google would suddenly become rather useless, and it would be a difficult task to make it useful again. They'd have to start scanning through any text that is in the data portion of Flash files, or something.
Google should be encouraging people to be as standards compliant as possible.
Microsoft.com validates, but Google should recognise that Microsoft are capable of doing some good things.
Yeah, because Google can't afford that 300 gigs of bandwidth, eh?
Paying for 300 gigs of bandwidth would be a very insignificant cost to Google.
but they're still 30% shark!
Get Apple to do it. Then they'll want it.
It is rather nice of them, isn't it? If I were Google, I reckon I'd drop them and refuse to re-list them.