Correct me if I'm wrong, since I do not use Rhapsody, but in order to even use Rhapsody at all, you have to pay $15/month. In this case, TPB is offering a VPN service for $7/month, but you don't have to pay for it to be able to use their, um, tracker "services."
Analogy time!!! Getting free sex, but paying for a condom. Either way, you'll get the sex, but the condom is for protection.
As the first post mentioned, please DO bring this matter up with your higher-ups and get something in writing. Even then, getting it in writing doesn't give you a golden ticket out. If you are knowingly doing something wrong, then you are just as responsible as those who authorized it.
I don't care how small your company is; the smaller, the easier to get hit with a huge bill after an audit. I don't know how trustworthy your bosses are, but what you don't want is for the authorities to catch wind of what's going on, and for your superiors to turn you into the scape goat.
"What, we didn't know there was any pirated software being used...he's the guy who handles this stuff. We hired him to take care of this. It's his fault..."
I say this respectfully, but it seems as if you're assuming that the Democrats are just waiting to become corrupt. I'm under the impression that both parties sell their souls to get that much-prolific "D" and "R" tag before they even enter mainstream politics. So, in other words, most of them are already corrupt and it's a matter of time before the skeletons are dug out of their closet.
This all comes back to voter education. As a good colleague of mine once said - "you deserve who you vote for." There absolutely needs to be a bigger push to make more information about candidates available to voters, and not just snippets of their accomplishments. What is their voting record? What proposals do they agree with or disagree with? Why do they agree / disagree with it? Are they going to allow their personal views drive what policies they enact? Are they easily influenced by lobbies? How many pork projects do they push through? (Stuff that has no real benefit to constituents, but helps out lobbies.)
This needs to happen on all levels of government: at the local, state, and federal level. The flip side is that voters must be willing to research and understand this information before making a decision.
The visual engine was full of bugs and design mistakes. The UI was a joke from a design perspective. The game logic suffered dozens of irritating bugs.
Well, you have just described WoW and pretty much EVERY MMORPG at launch. I don't really think it's fair to compare a game that was just launched (WAR) with a game that has been out for five years (WoW) and bemoan how it lacks polish or has bad quality compared to the other game.
At launch, WoW had horrible balance problems for Warriors, really awful pet pathing for hunters, and glitches that would cause a monster to regain full health or become unhittable. If you want to compare WAR to WoW, you're going to have to give it a few years. WoW was absolutely abysmal for a while after launch until they polished everything up and now it's pretty much a perfect game.
All in all, I'm trying to forget about my experience with WAR and I'm betting this is why people are going back to WOW and LOTRO. WAR is another AOC.
That's the problem Mythic is going to have to deal with. People were patient with WoW and sat through all of bugs and through really bad queue times. After five years of a really polished WoW, people expect every game afterward to have the same polish and same "perfection", which really sucks for Mythic. People are not willing to be as patient with other MMOs as they were with WoW.
It's cool that you tried the game though. My biggest complaint about WAR is the fact that it requires a fairly decent computer to run, and many people don't want to upgrade their card, mobo, etc. I've limited my time playing it until I can afford to upgrade my system.
Actually, you aren't completely wrong. I believe that the U.S. did fund the Afghan mujahedeen through Pakistan. However, the U.S. did not fund Bin Laden or al-Qaeda and they did not fund any group individually. Bin Laden went into Afghanistan with his own funds and his own agenda.
Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI's (Inter-Services Intelligence) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:
It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.
This is the equivallent of telling a rape victim to lay back and enjoy it.
No, it's not equivalent. It's nowhere NEAR the same thing. A rape victim gets raped by one person or multiple people. DNA is sometimes left behind or the victim is able to identify their attackers based on a combination of identifiable markings, voice, etc. If the system works correctly, those responsible for raping the victim will be brought to justice. You don't start killing random people in hopes that one or few of those that you kill happened to be the attackers.
I don't think you quite understood what the parent was saying. I don't think that they were saying "don't attack", I think they were saying "don't lob random nukes." Using the parent's logic, some terrorist organization manages to detonate a nuclear bomb inside America. So you decide that you want to retaliate with a nuclear bomb of your own. Where do you drop it? If you can find any shred of evidence that this terrorist organization was backed by some government or state, then that makes the job easy. But if the organization was decentralized? Do you continue to lob nukes indiscriminately within an entire region until everyone is dead?
Would you press the button to kill millions of individuals who had nothing to do with the attack? What happens if you manage to kill millions of people in countries a, b, and c, but the terrorists were hiding out in countries x, y, and z? That's the problem with terrorism. Outside of Hezbollah, they're typically not backed by any state, so you're going to have to start killing a whole lot of innocents until you find the right people.
MAD works quite well when it's between states and countries. Citizens of country X elected the officials who have the power start a nuclear war. In some way, those citizens are responsible. Those same citizens most likely don't want to die, so hopefully as educated voters, they make sure not to vote nutjobs into office. But what happens when you have a terrorist organization who is not tied to any country or state and who is not elected? There is no question that there would be retaliation, but unless I didn't understand the parent correctly, I thought they meant NOT retaliate with nukes since you have no fucking idea what you're attacking.
I'm not some hippie either. I would move to find and crush those responsible, but I don't see how killing millions in the process, on purpose, fixes anything. Those that were responsible are not afraid to die and couldn't care less if those around them died as well.
Sure. Just try to get into my local health centre's sauna or pool anytime monday or sauna every day 9am until 1pm if you have a penis attached to your body.
So the loophole to this is to have your penis attached to someone else's body?:x
When the "head of Iran" says that he's going to get the bomb and the USA is the Great Satan, he means nothing. I presume that you're referring to Ahmadinejad, and he has no power in Iran. The President of Iran has no control over the military - his only job is to steer the economy. Only the supreme ayatollah can give military orders, and he's kept his mouth shut for the most part.
Regardless, that still doesn't give any government hack the right to listen into my calls between me and my 95+ year old grandmother in Tehran.
Anyway, as I recall, the US grouped Iran and Iraq as part of the "Axis of Evil" and then proceeded to invade Iraq. Who is the bigger threat right now?
I've seen different permutations of this comment being thrown around, and this is indicative that either the system is really broken or people are highly exaggerating and don't know what they're talking about. Do we have any legal precedence of parents suing schools, teachers, and school boards for giving their child detention? Unless the teacher beat the crap out of the kid before detention, or unless the child was sodomized while in detention, I do not see how anyone can just sue and not be laughed out of court.
I went to high school in the 90's and detentions and suspensions were handed out a lot. When fights would occur, teachers would pull the kids apart and they would get suspended or face expulsion if there was more than one prior incident. I've only seen one incident of a school going into lock-down after a fight with the police called, and that was only because of a rumor of a weapon, which did not exist. Arresting a student for texting and then lying about having the phone is stupid and goes way too far. The kid should have been pulled out of class and given detention for her disruptive behavior. What a waste of police resources to have to go to a school to arrest an "unruly" kid for using their phone.
Anyway, have you actually seen or heard about parents suing teachers with "force able confinement" ? I read the report of the whole incident and the student was really bratty. She attempted to conceal her phone, kept lying to the officers, and even gave them wrong numbers when they tried to call her parents. Had she admitted that she had the phone to begin with, none of this would have ever happened. For that, I do blame her. But to arrest her? There are far more nefarious criminals out there that deserve our police department's attention, not a 14 year old brat. Stick her into detention and take away her phone privileges for a month for the first offense.
Nobody knows. It's like a syringe with an unknown content and you inject it into your arm. Who knows what will happen - all you know is that you're injecting yourself with something. Maybe it's all trippy. Enjoy the ride!
I'm not an economist at all, but I just don't think that you can spend your way out of debt. The proper phrase for that is "printing more money." Your different tech and manufacturing sectors have to actually produce something. But maybe that's my lack of an actual understanding of economics beyond college-level content.
First of all, thanks for posting those links - it was nice seeing more information about this case.
An AC says before if these marks are still on the records for the kids. Well why wouldn't they be? Just because the sentencing was wrong doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed.
You make a good case that just because the sentencing was wrong, that it doesn't mean that the crime wasn't committed. However, I feel that in a situation like this, the whole process is tainted. As another poster pointed out in response, are we sure that another judge would have sentenced them to the same? If all of these cases were tried before a jury, then that's one thing, but you really need to have a clean judge to ensure that something in the process does not influence the wrong decision. Still, most of the cases are being reviewed, which I think is the proper thing to do.
Lucky Yankees with all your fancy technology. If I told you what we use, nobody would respond for fear that in attempting to respond I would cause a few fatalities.
Says somebody who obviously never needed social programs. It's everybody's responsibility to uphold a civil society by helping the truly needy, because they would expect the same if they needed it.
I'm only speaking for myself. I would love to see my tax dollars go out and help people out, but only if it meant that those that are being helped would eventually become productive members of society. It does them no good if they only collected a cheque but were never in a position to help themselves. I've always felt that the point of having any social program was to send people assistance so that they could help themselves get back on their feet. Once they get back on their feet, they are then able to contribute so that other people can be helped. Obviously, such a system has the potential to be highly abused.
I have never conducted or read about any scientific studies to show how many people actually just sit at home and collect welfare cheques while never working, so I cannot really say whether that point of view is a myth or not.
That's my take. Some people would not want to see a single dime go out in such a manner, and that's their right, as it's their hard-earned money. I'm interested in helping the needy, but even more interested in helping them actually get into a position to help themselves.
I'm not calling all welfare recipients lazy, but was more going along the lines of the old Chinese proverb of "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Anyway, there are non-welfare based social programs as well, and I honestly believe that the biggest problems are the excess pork that politicians promise to special interest groups. I can stomach a homeless guy getting my money, but not a multi-million dollar special interest group, unless they are actually producing jobs and giving back.
Of course, I'm not a big fan of excessive taxing to begin with. I would like to see the money that people earn to stay in their pockets as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed one!
Sincerely,
The Grue Currently Behind You.
hahaha so true! :)
Very true and a good point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, since I do not use Rhapsody, but in order to even use Rhapsody at all, you have to pay $15/month. In this case, TPB is offering a VPN service for $7/month, but you don't have to pay for it to be able to use their, um, tracker "services."
Analogy time!!! Getting free sex, but paying for a condom. Either way, you'll get the sex, but the condom is for protection.
Hahaha - that made me smile. That would mean all consultants and lawyers are prostitutes.
Oh, wait...
(Disclaimer: I am a consultant)
Not as bad as Operation Ajax. (Joint British - American operation.) Just reading about it makes me nauseous.
Last year.
As the first post mentioned, please DO bring this matter up with your higher-ups and get something in writing. Even then, getting it in writing doesn't give you a golden ticket out. If you are knowingly doing something wrong, then you are just as responsible as those who authorized it.
I don't care how small your company is; the smaller, the easier to get hit with a huge bill after an audit. I don't know how trustworthy your bosses are, but what you don't want is for the authorities to catch wind of what's going on, and for your superiors to turn you into the scape goat.
"What, we didn't know there was any pirated software being used...he's the guy who handles this stuff. We hired him to take care of this. It's his fault..."
And the lolcat translation.
Great point.
I say this respectfully, but it seems as if you're assuming that the Democrats are just waiting to become corrupt. I'm under the impression that both parties sell their souls to get that much-prolific "D" and "R" tag before they even enter mainstream politics. So, in other words, most of them are already corrupt and it's a matter of time before the skeletons are dug out of their closet.
This all comes back to voter education. As a good colleague of mine once said - "you deserve who you vote for." There absolutely needs to be a bigger push to make more information about candidates available to voters, and not just snippets of their accomplishments. What is their voting record? What proposals do they agree with or disagree with? Why do they agree / disagree with it? Are they going to allow their personal views drive what policies they enact? Are they easily influenced by lobbies? How many pork projects do they push through? (Stuff that has no real benefit to constituents, but helps out lobbies.)
This needs to happen on all levels of government: at the local, state, and federal level. The flip side is that voters must be willing to research and understand this information before making a decision.
Anyway, good comment on your part.
The visual engine was full of bugs and design mistakes. The UI was a joke from a design perspective. The game logic suffered dozens of irritating bugs.
Well, you have just described WoW and pretty much EVERY MMORPG at launch. I don't really think it's fair to compare a game that was just launched (WAR) with a game that has been out for five years (WoW) and bemoan how it lacks polish or has bad quality compared to the other game.
At launch, WoW had horrible balance problems for Warriors, really awful pet pathing for hunters, and glitches that would cause a monster to regain full health or become unhittable. If you want to compare WAR to WoW, you're going to have to give it a few years. WoW was absolutely abysmal for a while after launch until they polished everything up and now it's pretty much a perfect game.
All in all, I'm trying to forget about my experience with WAR and I'm betting this is why people are going back to WOW and LOTRO. WAR is another AOC.
That's the problem Mythic is going to have to deal with. People were patient with WoW and sat through all of bugs and through really bad queue times. After five years of a really polished WoW, people expect every game afterward to have the same polish and same "perfection", which really sucks for Mythic. People are not willing to be as patient with other MMOs as they were with WoW.
It's cool that you tried the game though. My biggest complaint about WAR is the fact that it requires a fairly decent computer to run, and many people don't want to upgrade their card, mobo, etc. I've limited my time playing it until I can afford to upgrade my system.
Actually, you aren't completely wrong. I believe that the U.S. did fund the Afghan mujahedeen through Pakistan. However, the U.S. did not fund Bin Laden or al-Qaeda and they did not fund any group individually. Bin Laden went into Afghanistan with his own funds and his own agenda.
Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden
A quote from the wiki:
Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI's (Inter-Services Intelligence) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:
It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.
This is the equivallent of telling a rape victim to lay back and enjoy it.
No, it's not equivalent. It's nowhere NEAR the same thing. A rape victim gets raped by one person or multiple people. DNA is sometimes left behind or the victim is able to identify their attackers based on a combination of identifiable markings, voice, etc. If the system works correctly, those responsible for raping the victim will be brought to justice. You don't start killing random people in hopes that one or few of those that you kill happened to be the attackers.
I don't think you quite understood what the parent was saying. I don't think that they were saying "don't attack", I think they were saying "don't lob random nukes." Using the parent's logic, some terrorist organization manages to detonate a nuclear bomb inside America. So you decide that you want to retaliate with a nuclear bomb of your own. Where do you drop it? If you can find any shred of evidence that this terrorist organization was backed by some government or state, then that makes the job easy. But if the organization was decentralized? Do you continue to lob nukes indiscriminately within an entire region until everyone is dead?
Would you press the button to kill millions of individuals who had nothing to do with the attack? What happens if you manage to kill millions of people in countries a, b, and c, but the terrorists were hiding out in countries x, y, and z? That's the problem with terrorism. Outside of Hezbollah, they're typically not backed by any state, so you're going to have to start killing a whole lot of innocents until you find the right people.
MAD works quite well when it's between states and countries. Citizens of country X elected the officials who have the power start a nuclear war. In some way, those citizens are responsible. Those same citizens most likely don't want to die, so hopefully as educated voters, they make sure not to vote nutjobs into office. But what happens when you have a terrorist organization who is not tied to any country or state and who is not elected? There is no question that there would be retaliation, but unless I didn't understand the parent correctly, I thought they meant NOT retaliate with nukes since you have no fucking idea what you're attacking.
I'm not some hippie either. I would move to find and crush those responsible, but I don't see how killing millions in the process, on purpose, fixes anything. Those that were responsible are not afraid to die and couldn't care less if those around them died as well.
So lupus is out of the question?
Great, so now those of us browsing on +5 Funny have no reason to come to /. any longer!
Sure. Just try to get into my local health centre's sauna or pool anytime monday or sauna every day 9am until 1pm if you have a penis attached to your body.
So the loophole to this is to have your penis attached to someone else's body? :x
When the "head of Iran" says that he's going to get the bomb and the USA is the Great Satan, he means nothing. I presume that you're referring to Ahmadinejad, and he has no power in Iran. The President of Iran has no control over the military - his only job is to steer the economy. Only the supreme ayatollah can give military orders, and he's kept his mouth shut for the most part.
Regardless, that still doesn't give any government hack the right to listen into my calls between me and my 95+ year old grandmother in Tehran.
Anyway, as I recall, the US grouped Iran and Iraq as part of the "Axis of Evil" and then proceeded to invade Iraq. Who is the bigger threat right now?
How's the weather in South Wales? :P
I've seen different permutations of this comment being thrown around, and this is indicative that either the system is really broken or people are highly exaggerating and don't know what they're talking about. Do we have any legal precedence of parents suing schools, teachers, and school boards for giving their child detention? Unless the teacher beat the crap out of the kid before detention, or unless the child was sodomized while in detention, I do not see how anyone can just sue and not be laughed out of court.
I went to high school in the 90's and detentions and suspensions were handed out a lot. When fights would occur, teachers would pull the kids apart and they would get suspended or face expulsion if there was more than one prior incident. I've only seen one incident of a school going into lock-down after a fight with the police called, and that was only because of a rumor of a weapon, which did not exist. Arresting a student for texting and then lying about having the phone is stupid and goes way too far. The kid should have been pulled out of class and given detention for her disruptive behavior. What a waste of police resources to have to go to a school to arrest an "unruly" kid for using their phone.
Anyway, have you actually seen or heard about parents suing teachers with "force able confinement" ? I read the report of the whole incident and the student was really bratty. She attempted to conceal her phone, kept lying to the officers, and even gave them wrong numbers when they tried to call her parents. Had she admitted that she had the phone to begin with, none of this would have ever happened. For that, I do blame her. But to arrest her? There are far more nefarious criminals out there that deserve our police department's attention, not a 14 year old brat. Stick her into detention and take away her phone privileges for a month for the first offense.
Nobody knows. It's like a syringe with an unknown content and you inject it into your arm. Who knows what will happen - all you know is that you're injecting yourself with something. Maybe it's all trippy. Enjoy the ride!
I'm not an economist at all, but I just don't think that you can spend your way out of debt. The proper phrase for that is "printing more money." Your different tech and manufacturing sectors have to actually produce something. But maybe that's my lack of an actual understanding of economics beyond college-level content.
First of all, thanks for posting those links - it was nice seeing more information about this case.
An AC says before if these marks are still on the records for the kids. Well why wouldn't they be? Just because the sentencing was wrong doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed.
You make a good case that just because the sentencing was wrong, that it doesn't mean that the crime wasn't committed. However, I feel that in a situation like this, the whole process is tainted. As another poster pointed out in response, are we sure that another judge would have sentenced them to the same? If all of these cases were tried before a jury, then that's one thing, but you really need to have a clean judge to ensure that something in the process does not influence the wrong decision. Still, most of the cases are being reviewed, which I think is the proper thing to do.
Lucky Yankees with all your fancy technology. If I told you what we use, nobody would respond for fear that in attempting to respond I would cause a few fatalities.
You use Chuck Norris?
Says somebody who obviously never needed social programs. It's everybody's responsibility to uphold a civil society by helping the truly needy, because they would expect the same if they needed it.
I'm only speaking for myself. I would love to see my tax dollars go out and help people out, but only if it meant that those that are being helped would eventually become productive members of society. It does them no good if they only collected a cheque but were never in a position to help themselves. I've always felt that the point of having any social program was to send people assistance so that they could help themselves get back on their feet. Once they get back on their feet, they are then able to contribute so that other people can be helped. Obviously, such a system has the potential to be highly abused.
I have never conducted or read about any scientific studies to show how many people actually just sit at home and collect welfare cheques while never working, so I cannot really say whether that point of view is a myth or not.
That's my take. Some people would not want to see a single dime go out in such a manner, and that's their right, as it's their hard-earned money. I'm interested in helping the needy, but even more interested in helping them actually get into a position to help themselves.
I'm not calling all welfare recipients lazy, but was more going along the lines of the old Chinese proverb of "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Anyway, there are non-welfare based social programs as well, and I honestly believe that the biggest problems are the excess pork that politicians promise to special interest groups. I can stomach a homeless guy getting my money, but not a multi-million dollar special interest group, unless they are actually producing jobs and giving back.
Of course, I'm not a big fan of excessive taxing to begin with. I would like to see the money that people earn to stay in their pockets as much as possible.
If we replaced all human workers with robots, who would sit and read /. all day? What? I thought we were getting paid to kill productivity! ;)
*Checks Wikipedia*
It says I get an A!
I'm Iranian, and we have our share of gays and atheists. Just don't tell Ahmadinejad that. Or the religious police. :P