First Infraction: If we extend your logic to all regulations, we shouldn't have police either. They can't prevent every crime, the system will be gamed and people will think the government is "watching out" for them. In reality, consumers are anything but complacent even with the regulation we do have. Google "Product Review".
Second Infraction: That filthy restaurant in your scenario would shut down for a week after news got out, change the signs, change the name of the company, paint over the grease stained walls or change location, and open right back up and do the same thing all over again. Then repeat ad-nauseum. Literally.
Summary: Regulation does not have to mean the end of competition. The customer still has to see value. It means you can't attempt to skew and deceive people about actual value, i.e. cheat them, with the only repercussion being "Oh well, don't buy there/that brand anymore because you got screwed" because re-branding means you'd probably be screwed over again.
When government fucks with free markets, the customer loses, always.
No. They don't. I like my strawberry tart without so much rat in it.
Considering Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", President Theodore Roosevelt considered Sinclair a "crackpot" and wrote to William Allen White, "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth." Roosevelt however did sent two investigators to appease public outcry. Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and Social Worker James Bronson Reynolds.
For over a decade, reformers had been demanding Federal legislation to require the accurate labeling of preserved foods, beverages, and drugs. Germany and other European countries had roundly condemned American preserved meat and packinghouse products. Veterans of the Spanish-American War remembered none too fondly the "embalmed beef" of the quartermaster. Such legislation had passed the House only to die in the Senate, and Roosevelt urged its adoption in his message to Congress in December 1905.
Early in 1906, Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle", which exposed the unsanitary practices of the Chicago packers and stirred public indignation. Roosevelt called for action. The Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture, which maintained a staff of inspectors at the stockyards, immediately launched an investigation. The President directed Neill to make an independent inquiry: "I want to get at the bottom of this matter and be absolutely certain of our facts when the investigation is through." Neill, along with James Bronson Reynolds, a reformer from New York City, spent 2 and 1/2 weeks gathering information and then submitted a report to Roosevelt, who praised him for his work. In addition, not satisfied with the report of the Animal Industry Bureau, Roosevelt asked Neill to revise it.
Based on these reports, Roosevelt ordered the Department of Agriculture to prepare a bill establishing more stringent meat inspection procedures. Senator Albert J. Beveridge introduced the proposal in May. The so-called Beveridge Amendment quickly passed the Senate, where the packers made no fight. The press reported that the packers "were willing to agree to almost any kind of legislation" to Prevent publication of the Neill-Reynolds report.
However, Representative James W. Wadsworth of New York, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, mounted a vigorous opposition in the House. Thereupon, Roosevelt released both reports. As he transmitted the Neill-Reynolds report, he declared, "The conditions shown by even this short inspection to exist in the Chicago stockyards are revolting. It is imperatively necessary in the interest of health and decency that they should be radically changed. Under the existing law it is wholly impossible to secure satisfactory results." The Neill-Reynolds report had described the poor lighting and ventilation facilities; the "indifference to matters of cleanliness and sanitation" demonstrated by the privies provided for men and women; and the uncleanliness in handling products.
The packers retorted in congressional hearings that their procedures were sanitary and wholesome but that they would favor more efficient and expanded inspection. Nevertheless, their defenders in the House treated Neill harshly when he came to testify, prompting him to complain, "I feel like a witness under cross-examination whose testimony is trying to be broken down."
In the meantime, the press reported vigorous activities at the packinghouses where "carpenters and plumbers and kalsominers ( note added: whitewasher / painter ) by the score are at work on alterations." Nevertheless, a great outcry continued in both American and foreign newspapers. On June 19, Congress agreed to a meat inspection bill, and the President signed it on June 30, the same day he signed the Pure Food Law.
Your code is platform specific while mine runs equally well on all versions of windows and DOS. All versions of the Mac OS. All linux distros.
Your code also is dependent of Perl being present and the possible exploits that could be present in that package. The requirement of Perl also means that the computer has to be on to run your code.
What bugs me the most is that every programmer fails at these basic principals in safe programming. Even more importantly, these basic principals port to every known programming language.
I understand where you're coming from, but the simple fact is that if this is your argument, you are a pathetic fucking nerd. People don't walk around with devices and software that let them do what you're saying if they're ever going to get laid.
I would like to point out the fact that Larry Page is by proxy doing exactly that, is the 24th richest person in the world with a personal wealth of US$17.5 billion in 2010 and could probably get laid faster then you can post your pathetic reply after reading mine.
Agreed. "terrorism content" is such a broad term. I wonder if, for instance, an exiled North Korean citizen blogging about the overthrow of the North Korean Government would fall into "terrorism content"?
But it does make good "frighten the masses" material. I suspect some politician will be citing "a recent study". Complete with unorthodox rounding....
"40% of the internet is porn and 10% is linked to terrorism!!!!!! We need to control this!!!!!"
And later in the campaign...
"Half! I'll repeat. Half of the internet is porn and almost a quarter of it is linked to terrorism!!!!!! We need to control this!!!!!"
And even later in the campaign...
"90% of the internet is porn and linked to terrorism!!!!!! OMG!!! Think of the children!!! We need to control this!!!!!"
How can someone call themselves a professional journalist when my eighth grade history teacher would give me a failing grade because I didn't list my sources. Honestly...
"A new study"? Really? By whom?
I would really like to vet this information you presented but I have only the names of the people in your article. We have: Zack Stewart, video game player and Dr. David Walsh, founder Mind Positive Parenting. I guess it's the second guy but is he really the guy who did this "new study"? Or some guy you called up and asked about this "new study"? Are you attempting to attach more credibility due to this mystery study by omitting the source and attaching Dr. David Walsh to it via his quotes?
Sorry Mr. Reg Chapman, you may have had something very important to say, I may even agree with some of what you point out, but without following the basic rule of citing your source you don't lend yourself much credibility. I looked up Dr. David Walsh, went to some of the websites listed in his Wiki entry but didn't find a study that even resembled what you've cited. My obligation to believe what you have to say ends there.
Do you accept the Merriam-Webster & Oxford English Dictionaries definition of the verb "google" as meaning "to use the Google search engine to obtain information"?
Did you use that meaning prior to 2006? Because if so, that meaning was not added to Merriam-Webster & Oxford English Dictionaries until that year.
That "official" change in definition was in reaction to the meaning of the word changing in society. Not the other way around. Now someone may argue the point that the meaning of the verb "google" was clear, but not to someone who plays the game of cricket where it means "to bowl a googly".
To accept the change in the meaning of the verb "google", you have to accept the eventual change in the meaning of "begs the question" because preexisting definitions of words and phrases mean nothing when restricted to a small segment of society.
Or you could spend millions of dollars in ad campaigns to educate a larger portion of society in the proper meaning of the phrase "begs the question".
Irony is the Americans claiming they won the war of independence yet still speaking the queens English and then raping the hell out of it and telling everyone else their spelling is the correct one.
Actually, being able to not speak and speak the Queen's (or King's) English at the same time shows innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine these four people's shock and horror as they poofed out of existence because of gandhi_2's logic.
Regarding IP.
Specifically, The Hidden Fortress
I'm throwing a BS penalty flag.
First Infraction: If we extend your logic to all regulations, we shouldn't have police either. They can't prevent every crime, the system will be gamed and people will think the government is "watching out" for them. In reality, consumers are anything but complacent even with the regulation we do have. Google "Product Review".
Second Infraction: That filthy restaurant in your scenario would shut down for a week after news got out, change the signs, change the name of the company, paint over the grease stained walls or change location, and open right back up and do the same thing all over again. Then repeat ad-nauseum. Literally.
Summary: Regulation does not have to mean the end of competition. The customer still has to see value. It means you can't attempt to skew and deceive people about actual value, i.e. cheat them, with the only repercussion being "Oh well, don't buy there/that brand anymore because you got screwed" because re-branding means you'd probably be screwed over again.
When government fucks with free markets, the customer loses, always.
No. They don't. I like my strawberry tart without so much rat in it.
Considering Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", President Theodore Roosevelt considered Sinclair a "crackpot" and wrote to William Allen White, "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth." Roosevelt however did sent two investigators to appease public outcry. Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and Social Worker James Bronson Reynolds.
From: http://www.bls.gov/opub/blsfirsthundredyears/100_years_of_bls.pdf
Page: 48 & 49
Packinghouse conditions
For over a decade, reformers had been demanding Federal legislation to require the accurate labeling of preserved foods, beverages, and drugs. Germany and other European countries had roundly condemned American preserved meat and packinghouse products. Veterans of the Spanish-American War remembered none too fondly the "embalmed beef" of the quartermaster. Such legislation had passed the House only to die in the Senate, and Roosevelt urged its adoption in his message to Congress in December 1905.
Early in 1906, Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle", which exposed the unsanitary practices of the Chicago packers and stirred public indignation. Roosevelt called for action. The Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture, which maintained a staff of inspectors at the stockyards, immediately launched an investigation. The President directed Neill to make an independent inquiry: "I want to get at the bottom of this matter and be absolutely certain of our facts when the investigation is through." Neill, along with James Bronson Reynolds, a reformer from New York City, spent 2 and 1/2 weeks gathering information and then submitted a report to Roosevelt, who praised him for his work. In addition, not satisfied with the report of the Animal Industry Bureau, Roosevelt asked Neill to revise it.
Based on these reports, Roosevelt ordered the Department of Agriculture to prepare a bill establishing more stringent meat inspection procedures. Senator Albert J. Beveridge introduced the proposal in May. The so-called Beveridge Amendment quickly passed the Senate, where the packers made no fight. The press reported that the packers "were willing to agree to almost any kind of legislation" to Prevent publication of the Neill-Reynolds report.
However, Representative James W. Wadsworth of New York, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, mounted a vigorous opposition in the House. Thereupon, Roosevelt released both reports. As he transmitted the Neill-Reynolds report, he declared, "The conditions shown by even this short inspection to exist in the Chicago stockyards are revolting. It is imperatively necessary in the interest of health and decency that they should be radically changed. Under the existing law it is wholly impossible to secure satisfactory results." The Neill-Reynolds report had described the poor lighting and ventilation facilities; the "indifference to matters of cleanliness and sanitation" demonstrated by the privies provided for men and women; and the uncleanliness in handling products.
The packers retorted in congressional hearings that their procedures were sanitary and wholesome but that they would favor more efficient and expanded inspection. Nevertheless, their defenders in the House treated Neill harshly when he came to testify, prompting him to complain, "I feel like a witness under cross-examination whose testimony is trying to be broken down."
In the meantime, the press reported vigorous activities at the packinghouses where "carpenters and plumbers and kalsominers ( note added: whitewasher / painter ) by the score are at work on alterations." Nevertheless, a great outcry continued in both American and foreign newspapers. On June 19, Congress agreed to a meat inspection bill, and the President signed it on June 30, the same day he signed the Pure Food Law.
Relativity is just a model.
Just like Camelot.
Voice over provided by: Professor John I.Q. Nerdelbaum Frink, Jr.
You know.... the way that is clearly demonstrated in all of our promotional videos. Prime example at 3:12 in Apple iPhone 4- Facetime, HD Video, Multitasking, iMovie and more.
I disagree.
Your code is platform specific while mine runs equally well on all versions of windows and DOS. All versions of the Mac OS. All linux distros.
Your code also is dependent of Perl being present and the possible exploits that could be present in that package. The requirement of Perl also means that the computer has to be on to run your code.
What bugs me the most is that every programmer fails at these basic principals in safe programming. Even more importantly, these basic principals port to every known programming language.
Demonstration below ( enclosed in quotes ):
""
Why should we be giving up on privacy for the benefit of marketing companies?
This is what the market is all about. The exchange of items of value and each side trying to get the most for the least.
The final decision on if you do is made when you purchase their service. You just have to decide on what has more value to you.
What part of "Broadcasting" don't you understand?
One signal could be a coffee shop's public WiFi and the next could be some idiot who left their WiFi unsecured.
You record the information and then review it later so the coffee shop gets listed and the idiot DOESN'T.
Do you get it now? Have I simplified it enough for your tiny mind to understand?
I understand where you're coming from, but the simple fact is that if this is your argument, you are a pathetic fucking nerd. People don't walk around with devices and software that let them do what you're saying if they're ever going to get laid.
I would like to point out the fact that Larry Page is by proxy doing exactly that, is the 24th richest person in the world with a personal wealth of US$17.5 billion in 2010 and could probably get laid faster then you can post your pathetic reply after reading mine.
Have a nice day.
Creepy and and socially inept...
But still not illegal.
More like "Because we can".
Of course!
Though... there is a problem of getting them to stay on the rotating turntable.
Agreed. "terrorism content" is such a broad term. I wonder if, for instance, an exiled North Korean citizen blogging about the overthrow of the North Korean Government would fall into "terrorism content"?
But it does make good "frighten the masses" material. I suspect some politician will be citing "a recent study". Complete with unorthodox rounding....
"40% of the internet is porn and 10% is linked to terrorism!!!!!! We need to control this!!!!!"
And later in the campaign...
"Half! I'll repeat. Half of the internet is porn and almost a quarter of it is linked to terrorism!!!!!! We need to control this!!!!!"
And even later in the campaign...
"90% of the internet is porn and linked to terrorism!!!!!! OMG!!! Think of the children!!! We need to control this!!!!!"
But the beer costs $10 a glass.
Well, sometimes going cheaper by buying pre-owned isn't always the best choice.
Dear Mr. Reg Chapman.
How can someone call themselves a professional journalist when my eighth grade history teacher would give me a failing grade because I didn't list my sources. Honestly...
"A new study"? Really? By whom?
I would really like to vet this information you presented but I have only the names of the people in your article. We have: Zack Stewart, video game player and Dr. David Walsh, founder Mind Positive Parenting. I guess it's the second guy but is he really the guy who did this "new study"? Or some guy you called up and asked about this "new study"? Are you attempting to attach more credibility due to this mystery study by omitting the source and attaching Dr. David Walsh to it via his quotes?
Sorry Mr. Reg Chapman, you may have had something very important to say, I may even agree with some of what you point out, but without following the basic rule of citing your source you don't lend yourself much credibility. I looked up Dr. David Walsh, went to some of the websites listed in his Wiki entry but didn't find a study that even resembled what you've cited. My obligation to believe what you have to say ends there.
Yeah, but Antipon kept modding his posts as "Troll"
Then I have a question to ask you.
Do you accept the Merriam-Webster & Oxford English Dictionaries definition of the verb "google" as meaning "to use the Google search engine to obtain information"?
Did you use that meaning prior to 2006? Because if so, that meaning was not added to Merriam-Webster & Oxford English Dictionaries until that year.
That "official" change in definition was in reaction to the meaning of the word changing in society. Not the other way around. Now someone may argue the point that the meaning of the verb "google" was clear, but not to someone who plays the game of cricket where it means "to bowl a googly".
To accept the change in the meaning of the verb "google", you have to accept the eventual change in the meaning of "begs the question" because preexisting definitions of words and phrases mean nothing when restricted to a small segment of society.
Or you could spend millions of dollars in ad campaigns to educate a larger portion of society in the proper meaning of the phrase "begs the question".
An impressed prosecutor doesn't mean you'll get away with it.
You are stating the obvious. What was apparently not obvious was that my comment was completely tongue-in-cheek.
No worries.
Imagine AC's shock and surprise when googling the phrase "1 short faggot" and expecting to see the volume of a bundle of sticks?
( Faggot ( volume ) )
What happens when you fail and they capture a nice picture of you trying to zap their system?
Hope the Prosecutor is a nerd too.
"Your honor, the Defendant created a tracking system and mounted it on his vehicle to aim a one watt laser at traffic....
This is fricking awesome!... "
True. It's like having tea time, and having no tea, while at the same time having tea.
In a cracked cup, an' all.
Irony is the Americans claiming they won the war of independence yet still speaking the queens English and then raping the hell out of it and telling everyone else their spelling is the correct one.
Actually, being able to not speak and speak the Queen's (or King's) English at the same time shows innovation.