Put this stupid myth to rest. There is no known reason for-- nor observed effect-- HFCS to be processed significantly differently in your body than straight up sucrose. In 1 of the 2 most common mixtures, it has 1% more glucose (better for you); in another it has 6% more fructose (a bit worse for you). Either way, its a wash, and chemically it has the exact same stuff that sucrose has, just already partly broken down into its constituent sugars (sucrose = glucose + fructose).
Its seriously irritating that of all things for people to worry about, they quibble about WHAT KIND of sugar is being imbibed (which has negligible effect) rather than the amount. Its like wondering whether the lake you are drowning in is fresh or brackish, and what health effects that might have on you.
One would think that all that would happen, is their remaining inventory would be sold off, and the remaining competitors would buy it up. Business would continue, and food would remain in stores.
If Harvard took such things seriously, the students would be out of the University and barred from readmission, and a mark on their transcript indicating such.
Jammie Thomas was guilty of breaking all of the laws she was accused of breaking, plus perjury and I believe obstruction of justice. Thats probably not the poster child you want to use.
Copyright was not invented with ideas in mind which became irrelevant with the invention of the mp3. Copyright was instituted with the notion that ideas were protectable; it was never about distribution costs or specific medium.
Mp3 is an "idea" every bit as much as books and art are, and if the founders were alive today there is no doubt they would agree. The whole point was to restrict access to expressions of an idea in order to allow its creator / author to enrich themselves as a reward for their labor. As "doing it on the internet" doesnt magically make the artist any money, those ideas are still relevant today.
Additionally, even were your notion about the archery law correct, it is irrelevant. The dubious archery law is not enforced, copyright is; and that archery law doesnt come up for discussion every other month, while patent / copyrights do. Finally, that archery law has not been instituted in every single successful country extant today, while some degree of intellectual property laws HAVE.
There is no reason I can fathom why copyright laws innately fall into categories of "right" or "wrong" in the way that slavery does, except in the general sense that all government laws do by virtue of restricting other humans.
In other words, you can argue that copyright goes too far very easily and I would agree that is possible.
But the argument that copyright laws in themselves are unjust is not a battle I think you will be able to defend in the least; if you have a rationale for that statement I would be very interested to hear it.
Good news: As a democratic government, both NZ and the US have mechanisms whereby that can happen, if you can get the majority of the populace to agree with you.
Bad news: The majority of the populace does not agree with you.
Youre going to have to accept that basically every modern country in the world recognizes some degree of intellectual property and ownership rights for such, Youre also going to have to accept that it has nothing to do with corruption, lobbying, or conspiracies, as these rights have been recognized for hundreds of years.
At the end of the day, the entire role of the government is to tell you what things you may not do. Sharing other people's copyrighted stuff is one of those things societies have agreed should be restricted.
Its a crime, and a very specific one. Im not sure what school of law you went to, but I somehow get the feeling that not many of its graduates pass the bar.
If the guy is actually guilty, and the fine is not excessive, why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group? Is there anything in this article that indicates a wrong was done to the "convicted file-sharer"?
From one of the articles, So, with guilt under current law established, the Tribunal set about the task of a financial punishment. According to regulations, in a downloading case the cost of the infringed products must be considered. Man Down is available of iTunes for $2.39 (US$2.00) and Tonight Tonight at $1.79 (US$1.50)....
Once again, 95% of bluescreens are one of the issues above-- ESPECIALLY drivers. I guarantee you that that laptop had drivers on it.
If you dont believe me, grab nirsoft.net's bluescreenview, and check out the cause. Id bet money that it ends up being a driver, and if I had to guess I would say one of the following: video Webcam sound wireless / bluetooth printer
Once you start taking 5 minutes to find out WHY windows bluescreens when it does, your opinion of windows will rise and your opinions of hardware manufacturers will fall.
Blackmail is ALWAYS the fault of the person seeking to take advantage of another person.
Blackmail by definition requires one party to have compromising knowledge of another party; this generally implies that "the victim" is guilty, at LEAST in their own mind, of something "compromising".
Counter-example to your statement: Man embezzles $3 million from employer; janitor finds out and blackmails him. "Always the fault" of the janitor?
It doesnt have to be 100% "their fault" for them to be guilty of poor judgement.
The problem with trying to place blame 100% one place or the other is it doesnt work in the real world. Quick, someone dashes out into a street from between parked cars with out looking, and gets hit by drunk driver. Whose "fault"? You could say "obviously the drunks", and in large part youre right-- but at the same time if that person had simply looked both ways he would not have been hit; he shares some culpability for his predicament.
This is one of the main sources of Windows bloat and crash issues.
Anyone talking about "Windows crash issues" generally indicates a lack of knowledge. There really arent "general" crash issues on Windows, any more than there are on Linux. Probably 95% of crashes on windows are either buggy / malicious programs (one might ask why youre running them as admin), or buggy drivers, or buggy hardware. Those same issues will cause crashes on Linux, incidentally.
When you issue a "secure delete" command to the flash drive, the data is gone, and as far as I have ever heard it is irretrievable short of perhaps busting out an electron microscope.
If you want to securely erase an SSD on windows, everything I have read indicates "diskpart -->select disk x; clean all" will do it.
With magnetic platters, it is at least "in theory" possible to retrieve data from magnetic domain remnants, though that too is deeply in the "hypothetical" realm
As it is now if we do not speak up some PHB will be trotting out a PPT and while pointing at the numbers say "If you see here we sold X number of our previous product and our focus groups say X+Y play games of that genre today so the fact that we didn't sell X+Y just proves its those dirty pirates".
I mean it probably doesnt help that a good number of posters here (and I imagine elsewhere) specifically say that they would buy the game but they prefer to pirate it.
Honestly the thought process of some people drives me crazy. Piracy is perceived as a problem, so publisher gets DRM. Gamer thinks piracy is kind of lame, but that DRM is even lamer and gets mad at publisher for blaming pirates; proceeds to pirate game in the name of "freedom". Gamer then wonders why publishers are having kittens over piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox: ~44MB
Chrome: ~96MB
IE: ~20GB and counting
Gut clogging quantities of HFCS most likely.
Put this stupid myth to rest. There is no known reason for-- nor observed effect-- HFCS to be processed significantly differently in your body than straight up sucrose. In 1 of the 2 most common mixtures, it has 1% more glucose (better for you); in another it has 6% more fructose (a bit worse for you). Either way, its a wash, and chemically it has the exact same stuff that sucrose has, just already partly broken down into its constituent sugars (sucrose = glucose + fructose).
Its seriously irritating that of all things for people to worry about, they quibble about WHAT KIND of sugar is being imbibed (which has negligible effect) rather than the amount. Its like wondering whether the lake you are drowning in is fresh or brackish, and what health effects that might have on you.
One would think that all that would happen, is their remaining inventory would be sold off, and the remaining competitors would buy it up. Business would continue, and food would remain in stores.
Too bad theres no such thing as FDIC insurance.
That fact alone makes me think you have no idea what youre talking about.
the only country that has burnt down the White House and beat the U.S.
Im fairly certain that was the british.
Inconceivable! Surely their math classes go into no more details on "numbers" than the ones I took in 5th grade!
If Harvard took such things seriously, the students would be out of the University and barred from readmission, and a mark on their transcript indicating such.
Jammie Thomas was guilty of breaking all of the laws she was accused of breaking, plus perjury and I believe obstruction of justice. Thats probably not the poster child you want to use.
Copyright was not invented with ideas in mind which became irrelevant with the invention of the mp3. Copyright was instituted with the notion that ideas were protectable; it was never about distribution costs or specific medium.
Mp3 is an "idea" every bit as much as books and art are, and if the founders were alive today there is no doubt they would agree. The whole point was to restrict access to expressions of an idea in order to allow its creator / author to enrich themselves as a reward for their labor. As "doing it on the internet" doesnt magically make the artist any money, those ideas are still relevant today.
Additionally, even were your notion about the archery law correct, it is irrelevant. The dubious archery law is not enforced, copyright is; and that archery law doesnt come up for discussion every other month, while patent / copyrights do. Finally, that archery law has not been instituted in every single successful country extant today, while some degree of intellectual property laws HAVE.
There is no reason I can fathom why copyright laws innately fall into categories of "right" or "wrong" in the way that slavery does, except in the general sense that all government laws do by virtue of restricting other humans.
In other words, you can argue that copyright goes too far very easily and I would agree that is possible.
But the argument that copyright laws in themselves are unjust is not a battle I think you will be able to defend in the least; if you have a rationale for that statement I would be very interested to hear it.
Without the compromising facts (the crime) there likewise could have been no blackmail.
Good news: As a democratic government, both NZ and the US have mechanisms whereby that can happen, if you can get the majority of the populace to agree with you.
Bad news: The majority of the populace does not agree with you.
Youre going to have to accept that basically every modern country in the world recognizes some degree of intellectual property and ownership rights for such, Youre also going to have to accept that it has nothing to do with corruption, lobbying, or conspiracies, as these rights have been recognized for hundreds of years.
At the end of the day, the entire role of the government is to tell you what things you may not do. Sharing other people's copyrighted stuff is one of those things societies have agreed should be restricted.
Because anarchy is about the worst form of government there is.
Our societies "work" when the majority of people follow the majority of the laws. Everyone with the attitude you express chips away at that.
Well, at least youre honest in your utter contempt for the law.
Not exactly sure why youre bringing the MPAA / RIAA into it, however.
Its a crime, and a very specific one. Im not sure what school of law you went to, but I somehow get the feeling that not many of its graduates pass the bar.
If the guy is actually guilty, and the fine is not excessive, why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group? Is there anything in this article that indicates a wrong was done to the "convicted file-sharer"?
From one of the articles, ...
So, with guilt under current law established, the Tribunal set about the task of a financial punishment. According to regulations, in a downloading case the cost of the infringed products must be considered. Man Down is available of iTunes for $2.39 (US$2.00) and Tonight Tonight at $1.79 (US$1.50).
"Head on a pike", indeed.
Once again, 95% of bluescreens are one of the issues above-- ESPECIALLY drivers. I guarantee you that that laptop had drivers on it.
If you dont believe me, grab nirsoft.net's bluescreenview, and check out the cause. Id bet money that it ends up being a driver, and if I had to guess I would say one of the following:
video
Webcam
sound
wireless / bluetooth
printer
Once you start taking 5 minutes to find out WHY windows bluescreens when it does, your opinion of windows will rise and your opinions of hardware manufacturers will fall.
Blackmail is ALWAYS the fault of the person seeking to take advantage of another person.
Blackmail by definition requires one party to have compromising knowledge of another party; this generally implies that "the victim" is guilty, at LEAST in their own mind, of something "compromising".
Counter-example to your statement: Man embezzles $3 million from employer; janitor finds out and blackmails him. "Always the fault" of the janitor?
It doesnt have to be 100% "their fault" for them to be guilty of poor judgement.
The problem with trying to place blame 100% one place or the other is it doesnt work in the real world. Quick, someone dashes out into a street from between parked cars with out looking, and gets hit by drunk driver. Whose "fault"? You could say "obviously the drunks", and in large part youre right-- but at the same time if that person had simply looked both ways he would not have been hit; he shares some culpability for his predicament.
Because it was large scale, provable, and he got caught.
I can assure you that the kernel is not 41GB in Windows 8.
This is one of the main sources of Windows bloat and crash issues.
Anyone talking about "Windows crash issues" generally indicates a lack of knowledge. There really arent "general" crash issues on Windows, any more than there are on Linux. Probably 95% of crashes on windows are either buggy / malicious programs (one might ask why youre running them as admin), or buggy drivers, or buggy hardware. Those same issues will cause crashes on Linux, incidentally.
When you issue a "secure delete" command to the flash drive, the data is gone, and as far as I have ever heard it is irretrievable short of perhaps busting out an electron microscope.
If you want to securely erase an SSD on windows, everything I have read indicates "diskpart -->select disk x; clean all" will do it.
With magnetic platters, it is at least "in theory" possible to retrieve data from magnetic domain remnants, though that too is deeply in the "hypothetical" realm
As it is now if we do not speak up some PHB will be trotting out a PPT and while pointing at the numbers say "If you see here we sold X number of our previous product and our focus groups say X+Y play games of that genre today so the fact that we didn't sell X+Y just proves its those dirty pirates".
I mean it probably doesnt help that a good number of posters here (and I imagine elsewhere) specifically say that they would buy the game but they prefer to pirate it.
Honestly the thought process of some people drives me crazy. Piracy is perceived as a problem, so publisher gets DRM. Gamer thinks piracy is kind of lame, but that DRM is even lamer and gets mad at publisher for blaming pirates; proceeds to pirate game in the name of "freedom". Gamer then wonders why publishers are having kittens over piracy.