Surely MADD must realize that by going public like this Rockstar gets a ton of free high-profile publicity. Was nobody at MADD aware of GTA III and it's free publicity from various advocacy groups? You're assuming that MADD's intentions were something other than gaining publicity for themselves...
Has anyone ever noticed that anytime something is labeled "Adult" or "Mature", it is almost inevitably juvenile? I think the idea is that if you're mature enough to recognize that it's juvenile, then you can be expected to handle it ok. Otherwise, you're likely to do something stupid like try to imitate it in real life. Just because it's juvenile doesn't mean it's not fun:)
OST files still keep all of the messages on the server, so they're just mirrors. It still doesn't solve the problem of the usually stupidly small Exchange quotas. Ahh, I see. Seems like it should be able to do sort of a partial sync, where the server side OST would only hold maybe the last 30 days worth of email or something, while the local OST file would hold all of the person's email. Then it would just sync up by downloading new emails and deleting any that were marked for deletion locally and still exist on the server side OST. Of course there would have to be backups of all of the email coming and going on server as well, which should be archived somewhere offsite.
all I can think of is they couldn't use these companies because of some security issues. They use Microsoft software for damn near everything, and you're suggesting that they wouldn't use any of those options due to security concerns?! Do they really seem terribly concerned with security? If they can't perform a pretty common migration without losing millions of emails, then do you think they're even remotely competent to evaluate their security situation?
Yes they should have backed up before making such a large upgrade but "shit happens", especially in large organizations. Ahh yes, the "shit happens" defense. Wonder if that would get our company off if we fail to retain our email records as the law requires. Seriously, people refusing to hold the government accountable is the reason things are as fucked up as they are now.
Give it a rest, already. There are far worse crimes than hiring the low bidding, incompetent IT contractor. God only knows there is no shortage of incompetent IT people out there. There are few crimes greater than a democratic government thwarting the ability of the representatives of the people to conduct oversight of its actions. It's absolutely intolerable, and heads should roll for it.
I myself have lost over 6000 emails in two separate incidents involving Outlook. Are you the IT department in charge of the White House's communications, required to adhere to the laws regarding preservation of those communications? If so, shame on you for screwing this up! If not, then your example has practically nothing to do with this situation.
Once you get to a certain level of incompetence, it's really indistinguishable from malice. In this case, the incentives are all there for them to want to keep this "problem" in place. It lets them conveniently lose any incriminating email and blame it on "them dang computers". Everyone's lost some files at one time or another, right? Ok, so maybe you didn't have your own IT department in charge of running the communications for the most powerful government in the world...
If it's so easy and inexpensive to make a secure and accurate electronic voting machine, why don't you do it and get fabulously wealthy? Who would buy it? Doesn't seem like there's much of a market yet for accurate voting machines as long as its the politicians that are deciding what we'll use, and this kind of news getting little or no play in the mainstream media.
Better yet, why doesn't the open source community write a secure voting software package? www.openvotingconsortium.org
People seem to have been brainwashed into believing that copyright is some sort of natural right, even though it's anything but. The only reason it exists is to serve the public interest in having new works created. So temporary, limited monopolies were granted to the creators of the works for a long enough period to give them incentive to create them (originally 14 years, extendable to 28), after which they become part of the public domain. Since then, the copyright industry has grown very large and very powerful. It has used its money to get copyrights extended repeatedly, so that they now last longer than a normal human lifespan, and penalties for violating these laws have become extremely harsh.
Where is the public interest in this? Where is the compromise? It's been destroyed by the money involved. Nobody needs a 90+ year copyright as incentive to write a book or a song, or to create a movie. Nobody. No corporation forecasts earnings anywhere near that long, and therefore wouldn't green-light anything that was going to take more than the tiniest fraction of that time to make its money back. People just haven't been aware of what's going on, but recently we've started feeling some of the pain. I hope it gets painful enough that we see a real backlash against the industry that has done this.
Well damn, if only there were some mechanism by which independent artists could register to get paid when other people play their stuff... What does that have to do with the money generated by the copyright levy?
Pretending to follow the law isn't the same thing as actually following it. Actually following it makes little sense when the law is as convoluted and ridiculous as copyright law is today.
I just thought 9/11 was carte blanche for the USA to clean house of all of its enemies in the middle east. We kinda had the bigger problem of dealing with Al-Qaeda at the time. Bush used that excuse to go off and do something completely different, so now Al-Qaeda is gaining strength again and we're having more trouble hanging on in Afghanistan. We're not getting much help these days either since he fucking blew away all the goodwill we had before the war.
Saddam was enough of a dick that a quick war to take his out would have been well worth it. Some of us were paying attention when the experts were telling Bush and the Pentagon that we couldn't do the mission with so few troops. If you're gonna go off and do something that people don't think you should do, then you better fucking at least get it done right. He deserves every bit of hate and badmouthing that he's getting now.
I mean, come on, if Bush had pulled it off, knocked off Saddam but kept Iraq from falling apart, and right now Iraq was pumping 5 million barrels a day to keep gas prices at around $1.50 / gallon, who would even care about the whether the war was honest or not? They've created a hell of a lot more problems for us than we had before the war, for something that had nothing to do with anything. If we want to fix our problems with the Middle East, the first thing we should be doing is devoting as much resources as possible to figuring out how we can quit being dependent on them! This is what the country gets for electing a jackass wannabe cowboy. I hope people remember this the next time they decide they want to "vote for the guy I feel like I could go out and have a beer with". I have plenty of friends I can have a beer with, but I sure wouldn't want them running the country.
hahah funny, Pentagon - Bush manipulating the media!!! If thats the case they need to hire a new propaganda minister, as the media rips them for no other reason than to just rip them. Seriously sounds like some stupid far fetched idea that came out of a blog with no reference. Seriously, you have no recollection of all the horseshit we were fed through the media in the months just before and after the war started?
Well to my understanding, this basically just says that information on laptops is subject to the same search criteria as ANY OTHER type of information you're carrying on you. If you have a bunch of folders with printouts of incriminating photos, or they're on your laptop, this says that they're treated exactly the same. The difference being that a laptop generally holds A LOT more information about us than we could store in a briefcase. Often much more personal info as well. It's more like having your entire home searched than your briefcase.
but I do know that no scientist is going to prove evolution for a fact, cause that would require them to replicate the universe, no? Actually, no, they wouldn't. We already know that evolution exists, because we've seen it. What you're thinking of is abiogenesis, or the development of life from non-living material.
in order to make something out of nothing and get life out of non-living material, would they not have to create a universe? or at least a living cell from a non living mass of particles? Right, which is what the research is focusing on. Read up on abiogenesis and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Enough to understand the arguments that each side is making. How about you? Have you looked into the research that's been going on regarding abiogenesis? Are you suggesting that the ID side is actually proposing testable hypothesis?
then so is saying something came from nothing. right? It would be if that's what scientists were actually doing, but that's not what they're doing. They're forming testable hypothesis and then going out and figuring out ways to test them. When ID proponents start doing that, then there may be reason to take them seriously.
ok, so if ID isn't a scientific theory(I'm by no means implying a diety, just some sort of ordered intellegence that started something), then how did life start? Scientists are trying to figure that out. The fact that we don't know the answer yet doesn't make ID a scientific theory though. There's nothing scientific about it. It's simply speculation.
I'm inclined to agree with the prototype requirement. That's the way it used to be, and I don't think it would be terrible to return to that state. If that would also involve the banning of "business method" patents, all the better. I think that software patents should probably also be done away with, as they can be covered by copyright, and the PTO has shown a complete lack of competence in determining what is novel in reviewing such patents.
With the improvements we've made with the unmanned craft, why build anything else? Your pilots get to stay safe out of harms way, you no longer have to degrade performance because of the limits of the human body, and you get to save money by not worrying about keeping the pilot alive. I think you're right that these remotely piloted craft are the future of combat. Combat evolved, if you will. In fact, the AF could do a lot to increase its recruiting prospects by developing the capability for these drones to teabag their opponents after defeating them. Perhaps incorporate the ability to spray a graffiti tag or spew racially insensitive invective. I know I find such tactics to be highly demoralizing and I generally go find something else to do fairly quickly.
Ideas are worthless, and letting someone claim a monopoly on an idea is rather dumb. Working out all the details (the stuff needed to be able to provide a working model, plus the stuff needed to be make it mass producable) is the hard part, and is what's important. Ideas are not worthless. Most innovations begin as ideas (although some begin as accidents). Modern innovations often require a large capital investment in order to produce anything that could be brought to market. If we didn't allow people to patent ideas, then the only ones capable of patenting these sorts of innovations would be large corporations. So how do the ideas get from the inventor to the organization with the capital to invest without the protection of a patent?
Shutting out small inventors and those who lack the funding to fully develop an idea into a marketable product is not the answer.
The Evolutionist response to Intelligent Design seems to be disproportionate and often off topic - which looks to be somewhat paranoid about a rabid Creationist resurgence. The response seems to be proportionate to the push by ID subscribers to have it inserted into science curriculum, which is one place it absolutely does not belong. Put it in philosophy classes or religious studies classes and things would be fine. But IDers don't seem to be satisfied unless they can force people to accept ID as science. I think that certainly explains the "paranoia".
Slashdot Mirror
If it's as they say, then why not use ost files exclusively? I've never worked with Exchange before, so I have no idea how it works or why...
Once you get to a certain level of incompetence, it's really indistinguishable from malice. In this case, the incentives are all there for them to want to keep this "problem" in place. It lets them conveniently lose any incriminating email and blame it on "them dang computers". Everyone's lost some files at one time or another, right? Ok, so maybe you didn't have your own IT department in charge of running the communications for the most powerful government in the world...
People seem to have been brainwashed into believing that copyright is some sort of natural right, even though it's anything but. The only reason it exists is to serve the public interest in having new works created. So temporary, limited monopolies were granted to the creators of the works for a long enough period to give them incentive to create them (originally 14 years, extendable to 28), after which they become part of the public domain. Since then, the copyright industry has grown very large and very powerful. It has used its money to get copyrights extended repeatedly, so that they now last longer than a normal human lifespan, and penalties for violating these laws have become extremely harsh.
Where is the public interest in this? Where is the compromise? It's been destroyed by the money involved. Nobody needs a 90+ year copyright as incentive to write a book or a song, or to create a movie. Nobody. No corporation forecasts earnings anywhere near that long, and therefore wouldn't green-light anything that was going to take more than the tiniest fraction of that time to make its money back. People just haven't been aware of what's going on, but recently we've started feeling some of the pain. I hope it gets painful enough that we see a real backlash against the industry that has done this.
Enough to understand the arguments that each side is making. How about you? Have you looked into the research that's been going on regarding abiogenesis? Are you suggesting that the ID side is actually proposing testable hypothesis?
I'm inclined to agree with the prototype requirement. That's the way it used to be, and I don't think it would be terrible to return to that state. If that would also involve the banning of "business method" patents, all the better. I think that software patents should probably also be done away with, as they can be covered by copyright, and the PTO has shown a complete lack of competence in determining what is novel in reviewing such patents.
Shutting out small inventors and those who lack the funding to fully develop an idea into a marketable product is not the answer.