Plans in Germany produce less harmful exhaust, but there are no numbers because they are so clean. The plans in the US are held to be clean on paper but there are no numbers so the must be filthy dirty.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
What about the 950,000 coal workers in China you are threatening with modern processes? Maybe we should all go back to manual coal extraction because it employs more people. Oh wait that's even more dangerous. Choose, danger or jobs?
Almost makes you wish for a stockholder lawsuit claiming a dereliction of fiduciary duty by management. It can't be in any companies' best interest to continually and very publicly sue their best customers.
Why is it always my duty?! Don't other people have some responsibility in these situations?
When discrimination is very common, then you need some legislation to prevent it.
How does that legislation come about? If the discrimination against some group is so widespread that they do not even have a cafe they can go to, then who will vote in politicians that want to pass laws against it?
I don't know! How did the slaves get free?! Must have been a majority of people in the US who favored civil rights and equal treatment under the law back in the 1700s because now we have all this legislation.
Its very simple. People vote for those who represent them in a representative democracy. If you are the one who gives someone the right to vote then they will vote for you. There is some incentive for politicians to have more people willing to vote for them than the other guy. If a group of people you represent if discriminated against and passing anti-discrimination laws will not alienate your base then you have everything to gain by better representing the people.
Its somewhat cynical but that's how it is sometimes. The good thing is that when a group becomes better represented they become better integrated into society. We have decided that skin color is superfluous to the good of society because we see the truth of it every day. Society has a memory, and not all of the old ideals of society have left us, but it is unlikely to reemerge because the new way is more beneficial to the people in power.
You wonder why nobody supports the views of the slashdot crowd? IP reform, broadband, net neutrality! There would be no huge outcries from most people over these issues. No politician's base would be alienated enough to vote for someone else over these issues, but they are avoided. Of course, the first one to try for serious IP reform would see his opponent outspending him three fold. The plight of the reformer in politics today is campaign finance, not lack of will. If the issue isn't sufficiently polarizing votes are are easy to change with a few ad dollars. If a politician bets their career on a boring issue, no matter how important we know it to be, then they risk seeing someone even more in the pocket of corporate interests bought into office.
It seems the only safe issues to come out for are the moral issues. Gays and abortion don't mean a lot either way to business. Gays will get their way eventually because nobody really loses, gays win, and there is a reduction in strife. Its only taken so long because the upsides in terms of votes and profit are so minor and the downside of opposing gay rights is also minor that for the time being the sentiment of "Boys kissing. ICKY" is still winning.
Kind of sad that we're so juvenile that we still debate issues like these..
But it looks like infringement. These look like any other youtube user out there, and their stuff isn't being flagged, nor is there any apparent permission listed on the video page.
It's dishonest and misleading.
Nobody ever promised you honesty and fair dealing. If they did they were lying to you.
Loose women with tightly fitting hoop skirts made God angry.
Then why didn't he sink the lifeboats containing (mostly) women and children?
The devil's in the details.
It's funny you phrase it that way, because I've always considered "being unconcerned with labels" to be the true measure of geekiness. Which leads to an interesting paradox..
Star Wars, Star Trek, D&D, Warhammer, Nintendo, Sega, Marvel, DC, AMD, Intel.....
The point of the game isn't the goal, it's the gameplay. In the example you gave, Crush the Castle and Angry Birds are not identical. In fact, the difference isn't even subtle. What's similar, to you, is the presentation of the game. If you were watching those games on Youtube, it'd be very easy to say that they're virtually identical. However, when you have the controls in your hot little hands, they are not. What you learn playing Angry Birds does not apply to Crush the Castle.
I don't know what you're arguing for. Of course the controls are different, simpler even, and that along with amusing graphics has made it the mobile super app that it is.
None of that detracts from the core game concept that makes it fun. The argument from almost everyone else is that Rovio didn't invent a new way to have fun. They just refined it a little for mobile touch environments.
I know your aspergers makes it hard, but please try to grasp the intent of the words you read rather than just the superficial dictionary meanings. Human interaction will become easier for you once that happens.
I'll give you credit that the game is more similar to Angry Birds is than Scorched Earth is, but it is not 'almost identical'. You can't, for example, master Crush the Castle then suddenly be an expert at Angry Birds. It doesn't work the other way, either. The way the games are played is that different.
They are as identical as two independently developed games based on the same concept can be. Angry Birds has the same goal and progression style as Crush the Castle. Just because the projectiles have different special features or the launching mechanics are slightly different doesn't mean they are not virtually identical. Angry birds is just simplified for a mobile interface and with a cute storyline added.
I would say the difference between them is patent encumbrance. Sure you can use h.264 if you're a smelly basement dwelling open source fanatic, but commercial usage is limited by patent licensing and royalties.
Any standard is a "closed" standard - otherwise you'd have hackers hired by corporations with opposing interests working to degrade the code far more effectively than any two-bit open-source developers could maintain. Censorship is more or less what makes a standard a standard - in its design and use.
Sounds like a fork. Not everyone has to work on the same code together; that would be Communism. You're not a Commie are you?
So say windows 8 turns out to be red hat linux with a new label on the box. For source code MSFT points back to red hat. The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
For MSFT to satisfy the GPL they must have control over the infrastructure which delivers the source code. Otherwise they are not in compliance. They could do this by paying red hat to do it for them. They could do it themselves. Maybe google provides this service for Android. I don't know.
Come on. We have been over this 1000 times.
All 12 windows users interested in the source code melt red hat's servers?
Just how many users would you expect to download the source code anyway?! I'm going to put the number at about twelve.
I really have trouble understanding how glider violates 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1). Glider does not touch warden or the client at all. It bypasses warden in the sense that warden doesn't detect a known cheating tool as installed or running on the system. It does not impair warden's operation. You might be inclined to say Glider 'avoids' detection in such a way that it is violating 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1), but that is acceptance of Blizzard's right to catalog and examine for their approval anything you do while using their software.
Say Blizzard wants to ban performance enhancing drugs in WoW because they give an unfair advantage. Children are now circumvention tools(say no to drugs kids). Anyone caught with children are now prohibited from playing WoW because they could bypass automated drug testing. The problem with the law is that anything can be a circumvention tool if you prohibit the right things.
Maybe I don't want Blizzard to know that I use emacs. I'm fairly certain that you can make a wow-bot with that. If I make sure that emacs has a random installation signature every time warden scans my system, then I am circumventing blizzard's right to detect my use of emacs? No, I'm just not letting blizzard know I use emacs. I have no legal obligation to report correct information to blizzard about my computer usage.
Is it just the fact that Blizzard doesn't want me to use WoW bots that makes avoiding their scans circumvention? The case can be made that they don't prohibit the use of bots through their copy protection, only the use of software that matches the signature of known bot software. Am I responsible for their inability to reliably detect software they don't like me running? Is hiding my emacs use any different from hiding my wow-bot use? If their detection is unreliable, is an unknown access vector which does not impede the operation of their detection software still circumvention of copy protection? Is it really the case that when any form of copy protection exists, even if it is almost entirely ineffective that not using the protected work precisely as proscribed by the copyright holder is a violation of 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1) ?
Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):
(3) As used in this subsection—
(A) to circumvent a technological measure means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure effectively controls access to a work if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
The content inside WoW can only be accessed via a client which Blizzard controls.
I understood glider uses the proper client.
You misunderstood the part where Blizzard controls the client. As soon as you start Glider, you are breaking the ToS on Blizzard’s client and you no longer have the right to use it.
Where is the circumventing copy protections part? Nobody argued that is isn't against the TOS. I wonder where the breaking of law happened.
If running the client isn't copyright violation, how is warden a copy protection mechanism? It doesn't seem to be protecting blizzard's copyright according to the judge.