Slashdot Mirror

Don't sell him short, he also makes music. And I bet he didn't even get a dime for that.

Copying isn't theft

Is this one of those stolen videos?

Well, it seems to be pretty strong if they can transport it on a truck with just one support at each end.

What is really cool is that sometimes you can find "stolen" content that is just not available anywhere else like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I can not find it for sell anywhere and I can not watch it on Netflix.

That's only 240p. I have all of season 1 at 480p (they didn't make a season 2 for "Quark"). Have you tried the torrent sites?

Ah, yes. Our organization does not tolerate failure.

He did some work for movies as well. His soundtrack to the Social Network was quite effective and he shared a Best Score Academy Award with Atticus Ross.

Plus, the song he wrote for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo makes for one of the better music videos I've seen.

What is really cool is that sometimes you can find "stolen" content that is just not available anywhere else like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Amazon has it for sale

You can also rent it from Netflix. I know they still had all of the disks available a few months ago as I watched them sometime late last year. It wasn't as funny as I remember it being though.

Check out the list of top videos on youtube: it's almost all music. I have no idea why.

Practicing Rapid Un(?)planned Disassembly, about $39.99.
Being so wealthy you can practice with real matter? Priceless

Some things are priceless. For everything else, there's PayPal.

And the rest largely only manufacture domestically and/or produce junk phones.

Even if that were true, which it is not, you might want to watch this lecture.

It's not piracy if the artist is compensated for the content. And thanks to YouTube's auto fingerprint tech, when it matches registered content the creator gets the ad revenues.

It's literally Money For Nothing!

I do go to youtube for music videos sometimes. The thing is that the artists do get paid for them. For me YouTube is the replacement for MTV. What is really cool is that sometimes you can find "stolen" content that is just not available anywhere else like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I can not find it for sell anywhere and I can not watch it on Netflix.
As for the rest of it. I watch a lot of tech shows, woodworking, car and truck shows, and old education shorts on YouTube

And Apple Music is different from other streaming services exactly how?

Apparently it's run by a relic who can't see where the future of music is going, that 1789 Copyright is obsolete in 2016, and who can't distinguish between the words "stolen" and "replicated".

It's my understanding that Pandora, Spotify, and Google Play are all run by people who are pushing the edge of what they can do legally, every single day. That gives them a direction towards the future.

So much for the days of hoisting the Jolly Roger at Apple!

But what about the MESSIAH's famous quoting of Salvador Dali ???????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... :-) .... shurely he cannot ignore the gospel of the Great Fruity One!!!! even though the Great Fruity One went all hypocritical like only Deity can....see all religious texts for details and that includes the Apple EULA's :P

> It doesn't have to be a choice between the lesser of two evils No, unfortunately because of our first-past-the-post voting system it does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So get behind Jill Stein and get rid of the first-past-the-post, which she is advocating doing

Copying isn't theft

A mirror on vertical plane produces a laterally inverted image. OK. Why it does not produce upside down image? Is it in our brain? A mirror on horizontal plane, like a lake surface, produces an upside down and laterally inverted image. Why?

Richard Feynman explains it best. Watch it here.

War without borders, war without end
war on a stick, cut to the quick!
PSYOPs at iHOP rumors of war,
war-on-a-rope, Contras for dope,
securing the slippery slope
Spray war, stick-on-war, war paint
(apply DIRECTLY to the FOREHEAD)
war in the East, war in the West
war up North, war down South
WAR KITTENS
IPv4 war, cryptowar, acronymwar
all made possible by excitable folk
using Microsoft PowerPoint

What did Linus describe?

First result off Google: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You haven't told us yet.

I expected you to be computer literate enough to find it yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

mmm....could be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

...is a technical solution to mass killings that take place inside of buildings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What every target would need is a sprinkler system that was capable of distributing Sticky Foam.

When the alarm is initiated, the building fills with sticky foam and EVERYONE is incapacitated. Just make sure you are not in front of the gunman when you are incapacitated.

You could possibly figure out a way to retrofit it with existing sprinkler systems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I guess what I'm really saying is that you'd get a lot more people to listen if you said "let's improve the licensing and background check system like in Czech Republic", instead of "let's enact an assault weapon ban, or ban all semi-autos outright, like in Australia". The latter elicits an immediate knee-jerk reaction, and for a good reason.

And it really doesn't help when prominent Democrat politicians - Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi etc - all cite Australia as the role model. It basically validates all the NRA tinfoil hat rants about how the gubmint is coming for their guns, because, well, Australian system has gun confiscation ("mandatory buyback" - but that's just a PR-friendly label for the same exact thing) at its core. It's exactly what they did in 1996.

I agree that NRA is nutty and there's little logic there. But mainstream gun control proposals coming from the left are also largely devoid of reason, or constitutionally suspect (such as that whole terrorist watchlist thing - and don't take my word for it, see what ACLU has to say).

So it becomes a shouting match with little place for logic and facts. And in the meantime, those of us who would prefer some reasonable legislation are left without a place to go. I dropped my NRA membership 4 years ago because I couldn't associate with that organization in good conscience; but when I see the usually reasonable Sanders go on a rant about "assault weapons", I can only facepalm.

The other thing is, existing gun laws have many places that are badly in the need of reform, and this could be done in a quid pro quo basis to satisfy both sides. For example, silencers are currently heavily regulated, with a $200 tax for manufacture and then every transfer, fingerprinting, and a waiting period of several months for ATF to process it all. Does it need to be that way? UK - you know, that place with some of the most draconian gun laws in Europe - lets you buy silencers easily, and they don't have any problems with that. And it cuts down on noise - good for people who shoot, to avoid hearing damage, and good for those who happen to be in the vicinity, for the same reason and to minimize nuisance aspects. So, why not just treat them same as any other firearm, and drop all the special restrictions? And package it in a bill that does so, and introduces universal background checks on federal level for all gun transactions. I bet you could get quite a few Republicans in Congress to vote for such a thing.

Similar stuff can be done with legislation around short-barreled rifles, and quite a few other things.

The problem is that it requires people who actually know what they're talking about to come together and discuss it from both sides. And there's a distinct lack of such. On the left, most people who want gun control - including politicians who actually write laws - have literally no clue. On the right, it's not really all that much better - you have those Republican politicians frying bacon on their ARs as a publicity stunt, but they still have no idea how that AR works, or what laws regulate it.

Your point would be more compelling if there were no anti-LGBT violence in the US by Christians. There is, however. And it's a bigger problem for Americans than IS is.

I'll ask you what I asked another poster:

"In the past 20 years, how many Americans have been killed by Christian fundamentalists? How many by Muslim fundamentalists? What percentage of the US population is Muslim?

Should we blind our eyes to current happenings, keep making apologies for Islam, and enact foolish immigration policies along the lines of Europe?"

I just can't understand the stupidity of people making such moral equivalences to Christians after over 50 people were shot in cold blood while the attacker pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Here, useful idiot, have a video.

Air gapped? More like air Grand Canyoned.

Sanders is the I still have a simple phone guy in the barber shop.

I don't know how legit this is, but here ya go... From Orlando, two months earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Slashdot now posts Kremlin "news"? The wikileaks article is nowhere nearly as specific as RT, mainly known for having English language newscasters quit on air live over being ordered to report false stories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's now or never...

Really, why not now? How much longer should we wait?

...that the dingo would not eat the baby.

> It doesn't have to be a choice between the lesser of two evils
No, unfortunately because of our first-past-the-post voting system it does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

But this ideology is shared by only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population.

A dangerous fraction. "Islam has bloody borders".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/...
http://www.dailysabah.com/afri...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/...

My claim is this difference isn't due to some fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. It comes from a particular extremist ideology that happens to be very influential in Islam right now.

That's because of reformations that occurred in Christianity and elsewhere. That isn't going to happen if people keep apologizing for current Islam by making shitty moral equivalences. Islam has been violent and fascist for a long time over a wide geographical area.

I also think Islam is going to be much harder to reform, because while you can point to some shitty parts of the Old Testament and Jesus saying he wasn't there to change the old law in the New Testament, his message was one of peace, love, and virtue. While that was completely ignored during Christianity's aggressive period, the seed was at least there to be returned to. Islam was born a bloody and violent religion, and has "Jihad" at its core.

I mean Mohammad Ali was a Muslim! Do you think he was an extremist?

Funny you should mention that. Yes, he was, though not a militant one.

Remember Boko Haram?
Sure do!

Ultimately, the answer is simply this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Everything else is just a justification, true ones of course, but never the primary reason.

Some people get it, some people don't. I happen to be one of the people who do, and that's okay. It sounds like you happen to be one of the people who don't, and that's okay too.

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

I know, this stuff is crazy.

The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.

[...]

But these people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government that would have tried them, convicted them, and saw them executed.

[...]

That’s what the Bible says, plain and simple.

Oh wait, wrong religion.

Because the crazy imam calling for the killing of gays is totally representative of Islam.

But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.

Your post reminds of this speech by Eben Moglen. That guy is seriously unappreciated.

Show me a US mosque where they actually encourage murdering homosexuals.

In denial much? Here is an imam talking in Florida this April...

Now I'll show you Westboro Baptist and New Hartford Word of Life.

Do show me... All I've ever heard them say is that "God hates fags" and "rejoices when soldiers die" — because American military now allows gays to serve. They are as silly as most Democrats you'd see, but they aren't encouraging murder.

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

make a phone call.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Yes, you can get a gun free America in just 5 easy steps... and while there are some legal hurdles I don't expect to see occurs... you are completely ignoring step 5 & the fact that you will have to used bodies of armed government agents to take the firearms from some small % of the population which probably isn't going to roll over.

But I thought you guys were building that wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Sneakers (1992): My Voice Is My Passport

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here's why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Note that this is from two months ago, in Orlando.

> commanded not to commit murder as the Hebraic word used in the Ten Commandments refers to murder and not killing.

Murder is a matter of moral perspective, so that's not too useful here. The morals of a religion have no bearing on the will of a people who are socialized under democratic ideals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I challenge you to thank these people when they smash in the windows of your car, or loot the local CVS in their neighborhood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You have to consider the reason for the pain inflicted to decide if it is good or bad. It may be the lesser of two pains.

Humans work out the best avenue sometimes by trying things and see if they get penalized. If no penalty is given then it has to be OK.

And we have the test for humanity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You're not necessarily wrong, but it's also a defeatist attitude. We should have the right to use modern technology without being surveilled by our own government.

Are you aware that the US government has been using warrantless wiretaps since the telegraph era? Benjamin Franklin created a post office so he could spy on mail and have breaking news in his news paper before anyone else. The situation is the same or worse everywhere else forever.

That's why the founders of the USA used encryption that was unbreakable at that time. Avoiding surveillance might be a noble cause, but you've always been under surveillance. So long as encryption without backdoors is still allowed, you can have secure correspondences (providing your devices aren't pre-hacked in the firmware -- they are).

What I'd be concerned with is the widespread use of directed energy weapons against civilians who post/say dissenting things, or the outright murder of those who try to shine a light on police misconduct. Maybe get enraged about the use of Zersetzung tactics against prominent FLOSS leaders by the political left as part of their ongoing effort to dispose of dissenters and install Politically Correct allies in all information outlets.

In other words, IMO, there are more serious shit to deal with right now such as leftists in California using cops to attack and kill noisy non-PC wrongthinkers. A bigger problem than surveillance is the lack of important information being spread. Fix the media's complicit covering up of heinous shit first and then you might have a chance to change everything else you want. People won't care if they don't know.

In June of 2010 Obama's NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden went on Al Jazeera TV and stated that Obama had given him three goals as administrator of the space agency that one put men on the moon:

1. Inspire children to study math and science

2. Expand our international relationships

3. "Third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and, ah, engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, ah, to help them, ah, feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering"

More astute readers will note that Obama charged Charlie with NOTHING related to putting Americans in space, going mack to the moon, going to an asteroid, going to Mars, etc. At the time he was vetting charlie for the Job, Obama was working to end US Manned spaceflight as he had promised the teachers unions he would do while on the campaign trail in 2007. His actual official campaign plan for NASA (still available online) was right there for anybody to read, even though he counted on geeks/nerds/etc to ignore documents and just get on the waves of "hope and change" hype and campaign happy talk about STEM. Obama's 2010 NASA budget eliminated all funding for the Shuttle program, the Constellation program for got back to the moon and on to Mars, put a finite end-date for ISS, funded the destruction and/or mothballing of numerous NASA facilities and vehicles, etc and caused such a panic in a bitterly partisan congress that nearly the only bi-partisan act of that congress was the defeat of Obama's NASA budget.

In 2007 before the campaign for the White House was in full swing, Obama had already promised one of the core constituencies of his party (unionized school teachers) that he would take five years of funding from NASA and put it into their schools (not for any specific new construction plans or anything, just into the slush-fund - thereby effectively just helping states fund their pension plans). Such a multi-year de-funding of a government agency like NASA would have eliminated a wide swath of the most-talented/experienced personnel, put systems into unmaintained conditions, and introduced an issue liberals in the Democrat party had been trying to achieve since Walter Mondale nearly succeeded in the aftermath of the 1967 Apollo 1 fire: putting the idea before congress of shutting NASA down as unnecessary and shifting all its funds to schools and social programs. Oh, and remember that without NASA running ISS, there would be no need for NASA to pay SpaceX to haul cargo and crew to it, and therefore SpaceX would have failed, no matter how much pro-SpaceX happy-talk Obama sycophants spout. Unfortunately, people in the tech community think of themselves as so smart and well-educated that they can be really fundamentally stupid.

Of course there is. If it wasn't the case, they wouldn't be doing it because it wouldn't cost less.

Automation drives down costs and prices, which increases demand, so even the manufacturers themselves may well be employing more people after automation than before. That has happened again and again with automated manufacturing in anything from cars to cell phones. In addition, automation is often used simply to improve quality, so even if output doesn't increase, it doesn't follow that workers are let go. So even looking at individual manufacturers, your reasoning doesn't work.

Of course, it is wrong to look at individual manufacturers anyway and assume that changes in their employment translate into overall joblessness. Automation creates many jobs in other companies, like the companies that supply the automation equipment, that program it, and that perform training and maintenance, plus all their suppliers. In addition, by lowering the prices of products, consumers now have more money to spend on other products and services, creating jobs there.

Your reasoning about the economy is as faulty as is the reasoning people employ for perpetual motion machines: you focus on a single step, but neglect the other interactions that happen.