Ok, what's the deal here? The article says 50,000 years ago, while the slashdot writeup says 25,000. Either this was an intentional snafu to catch people that don't read the articles - an inside joke - or it was severe stupidity.
The CNN article states: "radiocarbon tests that dated the first human settlement in North America to 50,000 years ago -- at least 25,000 years before other known human sites on the continent."
I think that they probably just misread the article.
It's a bit tricky since the.torrent isn't actually the illegal file you're downloading, and might not necessarily lead to the downloading of the actual file.
Even though.torrent isn't the actual illegal file you're downloading, if the name of the.torrent is similar to a trademark then the.torrent could be taken down because of trademark violation.
But, the AP article the manufacturer of the Magic Cube is the Toysmith Group. According to the Toysmith Group website, "All product is stocked and shipped from our distribution facility located in Auburn, Washington."
Why didn't the agents go to the distribution facility in Auburn, Washington?
Trademark in the title, copyright in the summary, but a patent on the Rubik's cube. These are all different you know...
From the AP report:
" Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C."
For example, if you have Microsoft Word, you can't just install it and then give away the installation media.
Actually, I believe the the licensing agreement only prevents the installation of the software on more than one computer at a time with the same product key. I don't believe there is anything in the license agreement preventing the change of ownership of the physical media.
Judging by the current UN meetings, we seem more interested in waging wars against nations for our own vested interests - how can you expect a corporation to not protect it's interests when the bastions of democracy act thus?
Are you referring to the world in general when you say "we" or the United States?
I believe, statistically speaking, that the most prominent threat to the airlines are the result of pilot error and/or inadequate maintenance. Better trained pilots and better trained maintenance crews would probably save more lives than any sort of passenger profiling.
In some ways, the studio's are just as unethical as a pirate. They will re-release a movie over and over again. First comes the vanilla version, with maybe a trailer and nothing else. Then comes the Collectors Edition, with a commentary track and production notes. Then comes the Directors Cut with added footage, remastered nontheless. Why can't they release the best version first? Instead, if you want the movie and the extra's, you have to buy it twice. BTW, this all comes after the $10 movie ticket price where popcorn is $5 and a coke is $5 and you have to sit through half an hour of commercials if you want a good seat.
They can't release the "best" version first because different people have different ideas of what is "best". Not everyone needs or wants the extra features or footage. Some people don't see the need to spend extra money for special features when they can buy a DVD with just the movie for half the price. Some people consider variety a good thing. Nobody is forcing you to buy every single version of the DVD that is released. Nobody is forcing you to buy a $10 movie ticket, a $5 popcorn or a $5 coke or sit through half an hour of commercials if you want a good seat. Maybe, theatre owners are charging high prices for tickets, popcorn, showing half an hour of commercials, and don't have enough good seats but are the theatre owners being unethical? How are the studios being unethical? Please explain.
Now tell me again, how are the pirates unethical? What money are they taking away from the studios?
In my opinion pirates are being unethical if they copy materials when they have no legal right to do so. Pirates take away money from the studios when they distribute illegal copies of materials to people who would have otherwise purchased a legal copy.
Clearly piracy ain't cutting in on the movie ticket sales, or any of the special edition sets.
I do not see any evidence in your post that "clearly piracy ain't cutting in on the movie ticket sales, or any of the special edition sets". I don't really believe it is actually possible to determine the precise effect of piracy on movies sales. Even if movie sales are down from last year's numbers, you can say for certain if piracy is responsible.
This is not to say that piracy is good, but considering how the movie studios treat the customers, I don't feel bad for them one but. Maybe if the movie studio's treated me better I would have more sympathy for them (for example, quit with the half hour advertising before a movie). Oh, and my biggest DVD gripe, STOP WITH THE ADVERTISING THAT CAN'T BE SKIPPED.
While I dislike the advertising before movies in the theatre, I do not believe that the movie studios can stop the advertising or high prices for popcorn or pop. I believe that the theatre owners have control over the concession prices and any advertising shown before the movie in the theatre. As for advertising in DVDs, I am not exactly what you are referring to. Are you talking advertising prior to the actual movie? Because I can't actually recall such type of advertising on DVD. Can you please clarify.
BTW, in unreleated news, I was reading that movie studios will now accept advertising in movies. Like in "I, Robot" the studio recieved money for a shoe commercial (converse shoes, I think). What is next? I can just see some of the classic movies, improved with product placement. I can just imagine Citizen Cane where everyone where's nike shoes and drinks Pepsi.
As other posters have already stated, product placement in movies has already been around a long time though you may not have noticed it. As for what is next? What about product placement in editoral content in magazines and newspapers? Advertisers have already been pushing for this. It seems to be the next logical step since product placement is already in novels, video games, and television shows.
BTW, when Ted Turner stated that Citizen Kane would be colorized, there was such public outcry
What is the maximum amount I can send with my PayPal account?
For security reasons, you will not be able to use your PayPal account to send money until you have added a credit card. Once you have added a credit card to your PayPal account, your Sending Limit will be increased to $2,000.00 USD. This limit applies to all payments regardless of how the payment is funded or to whom the payment is sent. Once you send payments totaling $2,000.00 USD, you will no longer be able to send payments until you lift your Sending Limit by becoming a Verified Member of PayPal. You can view your Sending Limit from your account overview. Show me To lift your Sending Limit, add and Confirm a bank account. Note: Some accounts are subject to a lower sending limit, determined by PayPal. These limits are subject to change and can be lifted by Confirming a bank account or by being otherwise Verified by PayPal.
Here's How:
1. Log in to your PayPal account
2. Click the View Limits link next to the yellow Balance box (if there is not a View Limits link, your account has no Sending Limit)
3. Your remaining sending limit is listed under the Sending Limit. heading
Note: As an added benefit for members with approved PayPal Buyer Credit is that all payments funded with PayPal Buyer Credit will not count against your sending limit."
Sending and receiving limits on Paypal depend on the type of account you have. You can tell if your Paypal account has limits once you login if you see a "View Limits" link next to the yellow Balance box. Verified members with a Business Paypal accounts should have no limits.
I agree that the Blars RBL is a very high collateral damage list since it lists netblocks and not single IP addresses. Blars maintains the RBL himself and so there are no automated methods of adding or removing IP addresses. It is definitely not a list a service provider should be using for blocking email.
Also, if your "newly-assigned IP" was already on "several dozen" other lists then your service provider probably doesn't have a very strong anti-spam enforcement policy. As well, your service provider probably still has spammers on their network and your IP address might be added to RBL because of those spammers.
It might be a good idea to switch to a provider that isn't listed on so many RBL's and has a stronger anti-spam enforcement policy.
In my post, I stated that "Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 and Mozilla Firefox 0.9 are considered Technology Previews as clearly indicated in their release notes". I was referring to release notes for each respective product and not if the Thunderbird 0.7 or Firefox 0.9 are displayed in the Technology Preview section of the main page for mozilla.org site (http://www.mozilla.org).
While Firebird 0.9 may not show up the "Technology Previews" section on the front page of the mozilla.org site, but if you read the release notes for Firefox 0.9 at:
The top of the release notes, specifically and plainly state that "Firebird 0.9 is a Technology Preview". In fact, the words "Technology Preview" are in bold in the release notes. From the release notes for Firebird 0.9:
"Release Notes - Firefox 0.9 (One Tree Hill)
Firefox is a speedy, full-featured browser that makes browsing more efficient than ever before. More information about Firefox is available.
Firefox 0.9 is a Technology Preview. While this software works well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser in most cases, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability. It is a pre-release product and should not be relied upon for mission-critical tasks. See the License Agreement for more information."
Both Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 and Mozilla Firefox 0.9 are considered "Technology Previews" as clearly indicated in their release notes and both state you should uninstall any previous versions before installing a new version. The Firefox 0.9 notes state that upgrading will be fixed in a future release. As well, installers for technology previews are generally considered unofficial preview installers since the upgrading issues involving the installer are not considered important until they have a stable release.
I don't believe that your definition of morality is any more or less logical than any other definition of morality, whether it is religious or not.
The definition of morality that you quote, a "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of hapiness", seems to me, to imply that there is some objective and quantitative measurement of happiness in order to measure the maximum level of happiness. Without such an objective measurement of happiness, you would have to rely on some subjecitve measurement. And if you rely on a subjective measurement, then your definition of morality becomes subjective. It becomes no more logical than a religious definition of morality because it relies on a subjective measurement of happiness.
Even if you could come up with an objective measurement of "happiness", let's say by measuring the level of endorphins in the brain, then you're really defining your morality using the objective measurement and not "true" happiness. Your definition of morality becomes a "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of endorphins" and not "true" happiness.
Of course, you can not worry about having a quantitative measurement of happiness and just say people are happy or not happy. In which case, you would re-define your definition of morality as simply as a set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have happiness. But, you still have a problem of having an objective way of determining if people are happy or not.
You are also assuming the population's general well-being is equivalent to your definition morality, i.e. the maximum number of people having the maximum level of hapiness. Your definition of morality is based on the happiness of individuals and does not take into account of the society as a whole. For example, if 51% of the population were made really happy by killing the other 49% of the population then by your definition of morality, this would be morally "right" as long as there was enough happiness. This could continue until almost the entire population was killed off, assuming there was enough happiness. However, I don't think that it is hardly good for the population's general well-being to have almost the entire population killed off.
The definition of morality, "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of hapiness", is dependent on what makes an individual happy and several assumptions. It assumes happiness can somehow determined objectively. It assumes a population with a maximum amount of happiness in its individuals is what's best for the population's general well-being as a whole.
Morality is about what is "wrong" and "right" behaviour. Whether you use a religious morality or some other philisophical moral theory to make that determination, you must use assumptions in deciding what is moral. Certain moral theories may seem more logical than others but in the end, in really comes down to a matter of personal choice.
Slashdot Mirror
From the Unofficial Apple Weblog:
- now-says-no-to-near-term-nano-iphone/
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/07/10/jp-morgan-retracts
The CNN article states: "radiocarbon tests that dated the first human settlement in North America to 50,000 years ago -- at least 25,000 years before other known human sites on the continent."
I think that they probably just misread the article.
Even though .torrent isn't the actual illegal file you're downloading, if the name of the .torrent is similar to a trademark then the .torrent could be taken down because of trademark violation.
Why didn't the agents go to the distribution facility in Auburn, Washington?
Trademark in the title, copyright in the summary, but a patent on the Rubik's cube. These are all different you know...
From the AP report:
" Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C."
So, presumably, it is a trademark issue.
Actually, I believe the the licensing agreement only prevents the installation of the software on more than one computer at a time with the same product key. I don't believe there is anything in the license agreement preventing the change of ownership of the physical media.
Judging by the current UN meetings, we seem more interested in waging wars against nations for our own vested interests - how can you expect a corporation to not protect it's interests when the bastions of democracy act thus? Are you referring to the world in general when you say "we" or the United States?
I believe, statistically speaking, that the most prominent threat to the airlines are the result of pilot error and/or inadequate maintenance. Better trained pilots and better trained maintenance crews would probably save more lives than any sort of passenger profiling.
They can't release the "best" version first because different people have different ideas of what is "best". Not everyone needs or wants the extra features or footage. Some people don't see the need to spend extra money for special features when they can buy a DVD with just the movie for half the price. Some people consider variety a good thing. Nobody is forcing you to buy every single version of the DVD that is released. Nobody is forcing you to buy a $10 movie ticket, a $5 popcorn or a $5 coke or sit through half an hour of commercials if you want a good seat. Maybe, theatre owners are charging high prices for tickets, popcorn, showing half an hour of commercials, and don't have enough good seats but are the theatre owners being unethical? How are the studios being unethical? Please explain.
Now tell me again, how are the pirates unethical? What money are they taking away from the studios?
In my opinion pirates are being unethical if they copy materials when they have no legal right to do so. Pirates take away money from the studios when they distribute illegal copies of materials to people who would have otherwise purchased a legal copy.
Clearly piracy ain't cutting in on the movie ticket sales, or any of the special edition sets.
I do not see any evidence in your post that "clearly piracy ain't cutting in on the movie ticket sales, or any of the special edition sets". I don't really believe it is actually possible to determine the precise effect of piracy on movies sales. Even if movie sales are down from last year's numbers, you can say for certain if piracy is responsible.
This is not to say that piracy is good, but considering how the movie studios treat the customers, I don't feel bad for them one but. Maybe if the movie studio's treated me better I would have more sympathy for them (for example, quit with the half hour advertising before a movie). Oh, and my biggest DVD gripe, STOP WITH THE ADVERTISING THAT CAN'T BE SKIPPED.
While I dislike the advertising before movies in the theatre, I do not believe that the movie studios can stop the advertising or high prices for popcorn or pop. I believe that the theatre owners have control over the concession prices and any advertising shown before the movie in the theatre. As for advertising in DVDs, I am not exactly what you are referring to. Are you talking advertising prior to the actual movie? Because I can't actually recall such type of advertising on DVD. Can you please clarify.
BTW, in unreleated news, I was reading that movie studios will now accept advertising in movies. Like in "I, Robot" the studio recieved money for a shoe commercial (converse shoes, I think). What is next? I can just see some of the classic movies, improved with product placement. I can just imagine Citizen Cane where everyone where's nike shoes and drinks Pepsi.
As other posters have already stated, product placement in movies has already been around a long time though you may not have noticed it. As for what is next? What about product placement in editoral content in magazines and newspapers? Advertisers have already been pushing for this. It seems to be the next logical step since product placement is already in novels, video games, and television shows.
BTW, when Ted Turner stated that Citizen Kane would be colorized, there was such public outcry
From Paypal Help Center:t &eloc=811
http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_help-ex
"Making Payments - Limits
What is the maximum amount I can send with my PayPal account?
For security reasons, you will not be able to use your PayPal account to send money until you have added a credit card. Once you have added a credit card to your PayPal account, your Sending Limit will be increased to $2,000.00 USD. This limit applies to all payments regardless of how the payment is funded or to whom the payment is sent. Once you send payments totaling $2,000.00 USD, you will no longer be able to send payments until you lift your Sending Limit by becoming a Verified Member of PayPal. You can view your Sending Limit from your account overview. Show me To lift your Sending Limit, add and Confirm a bank account. Note: Some accounts are subject to a lower sending limit, determined by PayPal. These limits are subject to change and can be lifted by Confirming a bank account or by being otherwise Verified by PayPal.
Here's How:
1. Log in to your PayPal account
2. Click the View Limits link next to the yellow Balance box (if there is not a View Limits link, your account has no Sending Limit)
3. Your remaining sending limit is listed under the Sending Limit. heading
Note: As an added benefit for members with approved PayPal Buyer Credit is that all payments funded with PayPal Buyer Credit will not count against your sending limit."
> can you even send $150,000 through paypal?
Sending and receiving limits on Paypal depend on the type of account you have. You can tell if your Paypal account has limits once you login if you see a "View Limits" link next to the yellow Balance box. Verified members with a Business Paypal accounts should have no limits.
http://www.tvdsb.on.ca/banting/ICE3M/unit6/floppy/
Here is a link to the ALA's The Most Frequently Challenged Books of 2003:n gedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#mfcb
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challe
>>America - that continent that Canada is part of?
>
>America is a country, not a continent. Perhaps you >were thinking of North America?
America is not a country. It is a hamlet in Horst aan de Maas, a municipality in the southeastern Netherlands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_aan_de_Maas
Perhaps you were thinking of the United States of America?
People who get more than enough sleep and are still tired should consult their doctor.
Fatigue can be caused by wide variety of infections, nutritional deficiencies, and other physical and mental disorders.
I agree that the Blars RBL is a very high collateral damage list since it lists netblocks and not single IP addresses. Blars maintains the RBL himself and so there are no automated methods of adding or removing IP addresses. It is definitely not a list a service provider should be using for blocking email.
Also, if your "newly-assigned IP" was already on "several dozen" other lists then your service provider probably doesn't have a very strong anti-spam enforcement policy. As well, your service provider probably still has spammers on their network and your IP address might be added to RBL because of those spammers.
It might be a good idea to switch to a provider that isn't listed on so many RBL's and has a stronger anti-spam enforcement policy.
DragonFlyBSD project is intended to take over development of the FreeBSD 4.X branch. Using a different method SMP and rewrite of packaging system.
l e/ 2003-July/002183.html
Check out the original announcement of DragonFlyBSD on the FreeBSD stable list:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stab
IMDB indicates that the extended edition is 250 minutes.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0167260/combined
That's Khan not Kahn.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/combined
While Firebird 0.9 may not show up the "Technology Previews" section on the front page of the mozilla.org site, but if you read the release notes for Firefox 0.9 at:
The top of the release notes, specifically and plainly state that "Firebird 0.9 is a Technology Preview". In fact, the words "Technology Preview" are in bold in the release notes. From the release notes for Firebird 0.9:
Both Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 and Mozilla Firefox 0.9 are considered "Technology Previews" as clearly indicated in their release notes and both state you should uninstall any previous versions before installing a new version. The Firefox 0.9 notes state that upgrading will be fixed in a future release. As well, installers for technology previews are generally considered unofficial preview installers since the upgrading issues involving the installer are not considered important until they have a stable release.
Maybe he is referring to the PC game by Westwood. It was released November 1997.
See: http://www.brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_Game.htm
Abe
Just look at Black Isle's "Baldur's Gate" game engine.
Baldur's Gate game engine (the Infinity Engine) was developed by Bioware.
I don't believe that your definition of morality is any more or less logical than any other definition of morality, whether it is religious or not.
The definition of morality that you quote, a "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of hapiness", seems to me, to imply that there is some objective and quantitative measurement of happiness in order to measure the maximum level of happiness. Without such an objective measurement of happiness, you would have to rely on some subjecitve measurement. And if you rely on a subjective measurement, then your definition of morality becomes subjective. It becomes no more logical than a religious definition of morality because it relies on a subjective measurement of happiness.
Even if you could come up with an objective measurement of "happiness", let's say by measuring the level of endorphins in the brain, then you're really defining your morality using the objective measurement and not "true" happiness. Your definition of morality becomes a "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of endorphins" and not "true" happiness.
Of course, you can not worry about having a quantitative measurement of happiness and just say people are happy or not happy. In which case, you would re-define your definition of morality as simply as a set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have happiness. But, you still have a problem of having an objective way of determining if people are happy or not.
You are also assuming the population's general well-being is equivalent to your definition morality, i.e. the maximum number of people having the maximum level of hapiness. Your definition of morality is based on the happiness of individuals and does not take into account of the society as a whole. For example, if 51% of the population were made really happy by killing the other 49% of the population then by your definition of morality, this would be morally "right" as long as there was enough happiness. This could continue until almost the entire population was killed off, assuming there was enough happiness. However, I don't think that it is hardly good for the population's general well-being to have almost the entire population killed off.
The definition of morality, "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of hapiness", is dependent on what makes an individual happy and several assumptions. It assumes happiness can somehow determined objectively. It assumes a population with a maximum amount of happiness in its individuals is what's best for the population's general well-being as a whole.
Morality is about what is "wrong" and "right" behaviour. Whether you use a religious morality or some other philisophical moral theory to make that determination, you must use assumptions in deciding what is moral. Certain moral theories may seem more logical than others but in the end, in really comes down to a matter of personal choice.
It might have been more impressive if it wasn't copied. Compare the comment to this article.