I came to the conclusion that you live in Melbourne, Australia, and that was before I found "melbournefineart". Since several people list their address, it would be fairly easy to associate a few of these with physical locations, and map your tram route. With one end near a residential area and the other in a business area, we can probably determine which is which.
It's fascinating information, though. Purplemonkeydishwasher is represented (multiple times). "stasi" too, that's good. "slowpieceofcrap" is informative, I wonder if netcraft could confirm that one? "pootwoog" is proof this is from Australia - no one else invents words like Aussies do. Oh yes, and it's good to have finally found the "other side of the rabbit hole". A little acting humor in "mycoitpiece"?
"Paul's Face Is A Network" "Paul Gleeson's iMac" "Paul Beardsell's iMac" "Scott Crighton's iMac" - this suggests that the iMac automatically names your network somehow. Does this reveal a previously unknown data leak? I can't be arsed to research iMac enough to tell.
I think the data should be grouped case-insensitively - maybe make the most common case the representative one? HOME Home and home would be equivalent - but I suppose we can do that as an exercise to the reader. It would cut down on the number of distinct names.
Congratulations, you just encourage it. Twice, and with multiple replies. The moderation system is designed to account for this stuff. It's designed so you just need a single person with a single mod point to mark it as troll or flamebait, cleaning up the comments for others.
The only thing you've said that makes sense is filtering multiple copies of things. Everything else is heavy-handed censorship type stuff. Police involved for being racist? That's excessive.
Just ignore it. It's going to be harder than ever, because you just fed the troll. Do not feed the trolls. But just ignore it. I get a kick out of it every time. "Oh that again, silly retard, no one reads that." But I was wrong - you read it. Ignore it.
"The way they made it" these days is highly compressed, so that it stands out as seeming louder. It also fits the radio or iPod medium better so you don't have to turn it up/down. There are piles of articles going back many years lambasting this technique, which more studios are using for more music. One example below.
Also, lower bitrate mp3 tends to sound fine on standard equipment, but true high fidelity speakers usually makes it easier to hear the compression artifacts. So while I can't tell the difference on my home $20 speakers (which sound quite nice actually), having a DJ table at a wedding party as an example requires big speakers, which usually do good bass, which is what tends to get dropped. Not sure if LAME is as bad as others, but the average mp3 floating about has serious bass distortions.
Slow down, I'm still meditating on the one hand clapping thing and I have to get to the tree falling in a forest without a witness - maybe zen I can answer you.
Obviously to solve that problem you'd only use it for travel. You can slip into someone's room unseen and build a small support structure out of this stuff, located where the person is least likely to look. You can then wait until the person returns, slip in (if not there already) and locate yourself in the support structure, which is out of direct eyesight. There you are free to remove the cloak from your eyeballs only, or any recording devices you have, until seen by the person's peripheral vision. A quick restoration of the cloak and you are invisible again, and the person thinks they simply hallucinated.
For the shower room application, you would need to ensure waterproofness and fogguplessness before attempting a visit, but it would suffice to plant and retrieve a camera after hours. You don't want to be caught using a transmitter, and the cloak would let you have physical access to bypass that restriction.
Of course, this would require some sort of coordination so you can know in advance if such a structure has already been built, or a camera already installed. I am therefore proud to announce my website cloakedstalkerstradingpost.com which allows you up-to-date information on which premises are prime targets, which have been built already, and which have been identified and disabled by the inhabitants. Our information is only as good as our users, but we also have information sharing agreements with creepy landlords, sons-of-milfs, and carefully screened psychotic ex-lovers, so sign up today for the most comprehensive coverage you can find. Beware other similar sites which promise a lot but fail to deliver. Only $4.99 per month charged automatically to your credit card (with one-time setup fee to cover administrative costs - we work hard, so it's worth it!)
Each month we will feature a review of the current and soon-to-be-announced cloaks available, an anonymous user giving us real-world tips on the other uses for this cloak such as, well whatever someone comes up with, and direct access to streaming NFL Cloaked (yes, since this gets asked a lot, it does look like nothing is happening but if you watch carefully, you can see the football when it is thrown or fumbled - in fact, cloaking the players makes it more likely that fumbles will occur, making the sport infinitely more enjoyable) and a selection of recipes from our users.
Order now and get a first-generation cloak free!*
(*) when the technology is available of course, we are not pre-selling vaporware!
Proof is a construct of logic, as in a mathematical proof. Science is about observations matching a hypothesis, which results in a testable theory. In order to prove the theory we have to put it to a rigorous test. Therefore, Slashdot has decided that we will strap a helmet-cam to your head and send you to Saturn. The cam is so you don't just lie about the T-Rexes. We will have sufficient evidence at that point to conclude that there is no evidence of T-Rexes on Saturn.
In addition, the only scenario under which that is possible, assuming you're talking about Earth dinosaurs and not Saturn dinosaurs, is that the meteor impact 65 million years ago which has been considered the mass extinction point of most of the dinosaurs actually ejected them into space like a drop of water rebounding from impact onto a placid liquid surface, flying them on space rocks in the same manner that Xenu flung earthlike citizens out on spaceships, only less "techy", puncturing a hexagonal space into the clouds which has been recently seen.
Since I made that theory up just now, I know it to be false, proving that the hexagon on Saturn is not related to dinosaurs. Besides, they would not have been able to survive without atmosphere, even if the space rocks did include enough food for the journey.
Therefore the only evidence pointing to dinos on Saturn is your own unsourced statement, which is not only self-serving but made in the same rhetorical style as arguments that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, which btw he has refused to deny and actively sought international protection to hide the very website discussing this. The various legal cases surrounding that claim specifically point this out as parody, and in light of the context of your claim it is logical to conclude that the same judicial and intellectual bodies would conclude that your claim too falls under parody.
Parody only happens when what you are saying is not factually true, therefore we can prove through inductive reasoning that your comment is a pardody, and therefore cannot be true. Hence, the statement "There are T-Rexes on Saturn" is inductively proven false, which was to be demonstrated. If you ask me if I've checked every possible square inch of Saturn for a single counter-example, I will point to this post as demonstration that such extreme measures are not required when it has logically been proven not true.
I find it a little strange that USA prosecuted Microsoft as an illegal leverager of a monopoly - this should have happened sooner. Maybe the IE team wouldn't have been disbanded.
Microsoft put out a crappy browser and then stopped developing it, thinking people would just give up on standards and write for IE. I find that strange as well.
I'm sure there are other aspects which qualify as strange.
Gartner says Windows 7 breaks the rule - they're obviously getting better after 35 years of developing the SAME FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM. I'll give them a break and say it's been since July 1993 for the NT codebase, so that's 17 years of practice to get a first release right.
Read the rest of what? If you're using U****t or Rapidshare or random web sites, or a private FTP or IRC or messenger clients, you're not uploading. Think about that - you assumed that downloading involves some sort of p2p application.
"or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright" does not mean "anything that affects the owner's rights". The term prejudicially is in there for a reason. If I download an audio file so I can extract a fair-use-sized audio clip for educational purposes, this might affect the owner's rights, but not prejudicially.
That last statement kinda outs your bias. I'd have to buy something? You're saying that if I couldn't download copyrighted music I'd have to buy something? Or are you saying that indy artists who give their music away for free, or the internet archive which has piles of legitimately free music, are no longer accessible? I do NOT have to buy anythnig - there is no law requiring that. Fortunately I'm American and don't have a tax on blank media (unless something passed without knowing it), so the blank media I purchase for my DATA files don't go to reward copyright holders for doing absolutely nothing. What would I have to buy? Is Celine Dion a required component of every citizen's music collection? Do I have to buy more than the two Cirque du Soleil DVDs I've already bought? No, I don't have to buy anything - there's plenty of GREAT stuff out there for free.
It updates using the C drive, regardless of your profile folder or temp folder settings. I had a 3GB XP installation, with program files on the D: partition. XP SP3 and related files filled up the drive - now AVG can't update. Many complaints on the user forums and the reply is basically eat a bowl of something unpleasant.
Little windows popping up all the time - advertisements, the scan started, scan stopped. It's pretty annoying. Many people have no problem, but if I see something move, even out of the corner of my eye, it gets my attention.
I might have figured this one out, but often you can't stop a scan. A scan you didn't start. I have no scheduled scans, and did not start a shell extension scan. Open it to troubleshoot the above update problems, and it's scanning. What's it scanning? Currently scanning: [blank]. 0 files. Scanning. Stop and pause buttons are clickable, but the animation keeps going and it's scanning whatever. This is in the user forums since version 8, then 8.5 and I saw it in 9. Still not fixed, but they managed to add lots of annoying popup windows and notifications.
AVG used to be the only thing I would recommend, but since about version 8, and the transition from Grisoft to AVG Industries or whatever, it's impossible. My gf saw me fighting with it and refuses to even consider installing it.
I'd rather buy and install an anonymously registered package than hand over registration information. I'm sure the company is legit, but I still don't feel comfortable trusting a company that has access to every file on my drives - hard, floppy, optical, thumb, network - and has registration information with my personal info. Even if it's just an e-mail address, you can do surprising things.
I know, tinfoil hat time - but didn't MySpace just choose to sell user data? Isn't Google data mining for targeted advertising?
downloading copyright music w/o the copyright owners' permission has always been a civil copyright violation.
You sure about that? If I download something, I'm not the one making a copy, since I don't have the original to copy from. The person with the server is copying it. At worst, you'd be importing. But the law you quoted puts you on the hook for at most importing, and clearly says for sale or rent.
Yes, but is it a solution to the problem of people replying to junk posts to get higher page placement? Putting things in context is a highly efficient organizational skill.
You're half right - once they hand down a decision, their interpretation of the law as documented in the majority decision is how the law will work, regardless of the intent.
The people vote for representatives to write and maintain laws for the people. This is not a direct democracy, so your representative is not obligated to do anything you ask, even if 100% of the constituents agree. And then the other congress people can oppose it if their constituents are on the other side, or those other congress people can ignore their constituents as well. The only risk to ignoring constituents is being voted out of office, so you can usually do what the voters want shortly after your campaign ends, and just before election, and in the middle do whatever you want. As long as you think you can spin any attacks the right way, you can do the complete opposite of what your voters want 49% of the time and still be "better than the other guy". Some have stretched that way above the 50% mark.
So the people have to wait out the current term, remember which one is the bad guy, and have more votes against than for the bad guy. And then hope the new guy does what he promised, or else you wait it out again and vote someone else in.
The people never fail - the system was designed so the people can't fail. Mostly because they can't work, either. That's why we are a representative democracy, not direct. That's why we have an electoral college rather than majority rule elections. Short of overthrowing the government, the only "failure" is that the people best qualified to represent the people don't want the job. Lawyers and judges and generally intelligent, well-read people typically don't want to engage in (or maybe even have the skills for) popularity contests. When you run for office, every mistake you made or misstatement or misunderstanding comes out in black and white, regardless of whether they are true, and it can be crushing. Didn't a congress person recently talk about resigning because the process was "too political"? Can't remember who, but the story was funny at the time.
Who would work on this? "Work on this" doesn't mean "create a linux logo like the made for windows one and get people to put it on their boxes." It's not that simple.
The hardware companies would have to add the logo on the box - I don't think it would make sense for an Improv Everywhere type swarm to go placing stickers on boxes on retail shelves. So your question is why aren't hardware people putting "Works with Linux" stickers on their boxes? Pretend someone created one. Well then they would have to support Linux, get open source versions of all of the drivers and test them with the hardware, and probably host their own repository to allow for driver updates so users have the officially supported version(s).
The last thing hardware people want is the phone call "I just bought this and thought I'd try Linux since I heard about it and it's on your box, now what?" In other words, hardware people only want knowledgeable users running Linux. If you know enough to research the hardware and figure out what works on Linux, you're smart enough to find the Linux support section of the hardware web site. If not, they don't want you to find it for the most part, if it even exists.
This goes all the way back to "Don't use a WinModem." There was actually a term for a product which came with missing parts and expected the operating system to implement DSP in software so the modem had less hardware wand was cheaper. In theory, Windows would use the sound card DSP to make up for the modem not having it. A few marginal cards were more expensive, and to differentiate themselves they would often put "Works on operating systems that aren't windows" or even "Works on Linux". Then either linux supported winmodems, or people switched to DSL/cable, and nobody cared. But they were using a standard interface that didn't require special drivers. The type of hardware people care about will require special drivers.
Even if what you say is true... I write a virus, copy an ASCII thing from some other warez release, and make it look legit. People see the torrent, download it, it looks legit because they don't know to check the hashes and all that. They execute my virus, which does not have any hash checks. The virus installs itself, then pops up a "This is not a valid Win32 Executable" message. User thinks oops, corrupted download, I'll just find it elsewhere. Even if they find the same release group, they are highly unlikely to compare my virus with the official cracked release and notice small differences like dates or different pr0pz or credits... and if they do they will take it as an update to an obviously flawed release. Great, this one works. Good job, another virus free warez release! Meanwhile I'm downloading all of their photos they took in a mirror flashing gang signs with a fake tan and pursing their lips. Good times.
In other words, malware won't bother to check those hashes, and most users wouldn't even think about it, so it offers no protection.
No, it doesn't. 4th amendment arguments are about whether something is public or private. Copyright arguments specifically assume that information is public, since if the information is private it cannot be copied. Information which is private does not require copyright protection, and no one ever said e-mail should be handed over solely because it's easy to do. "[B]oth are legal arguments" specifically makes no logical sense. On the one hand we're talking about constitutional rights, and on the other, intellectual property, and those are very different areas of law. That they are both found in the volumes which make up the entirety of USC is as meaningful as two people being found in the same telephone directory. Actually even less, unless the directory includes every person in the nation.
To clarify: the vast majority of copyright arguments here are based on one or more of the following: 1) Copyright in USA is unconstitutional since it is not "limited" as required (to the view of an individual, who will not live to see anything created in his lifetime public domain. 2) Copyright violations typically do not harm the company, certainly not in the amounts claimed, because (most) people would either not purchase the product, or use free alternatives. 3) The business model of creating digital content which is easily copied and treating it as if it were a tangible good makes no sense, and companies should update their business model. Specifically, it costs a lot of money to copy a book, even after initial machinery is acquired. The marginal cost of copying a digital CD or software installer is whatever you are paying for download if metered, or zero if unmetered or being transferred locally. 4) Civil disobedience to protest unfair copyright laws including the copyright length as above, DMCA which limits what you can do with what you pay for, DRM which makes legit users suffer and illegit customers have it easier, or overly restrictive EULA type agreements.
None of this applies to 4th amendment rights, nor to this case in particular. Is there an argument I forgot other than the fatally flawed "Information wants to be free" line?
There are a few people who will say "pirate everything" just as there are a few who say "read all of my online activity if it helps catch terrorists", but if you think about it, those people are more likely to be mutually exclusive.
And I should have further posted out the incorrect argument you used: Uncle Same is making the same argument about email; it's just electrons, reproducible at no cost. The argument made is that when you turn over information to a third party it becomes public, and an e-mail is essentially as private as a postcard. Most ISPs have a clause which says that information may be turned over to a law enforcement agency for the purposes of solving or preventing crimes, so a customer should have the opposite of an expectation of privacy unless that clause is omitted, which is rare. You send an e-mail to your ISP, police ask for it, the ISP decides do I hand this over or ask for a warrant? And it's less expensive to fight because that clause allows turnover. So the third party can divulge information the sender did not intend to have divulged. This is not the exact argument made in the decision, but it is a fairly decent example based on the case law referenced in the decision. I'm not saying it's a valid argument, I'm saying that's the decision.
To me, an e-mail is transmitted by wires which must be "tapped" in order to be read, and cannot be observed otherwise, so the analogy is flawed. Further, this was a (state) subpoena, not a request, and compliance is required under threat of punishment, which makes this coercion rather than volunteered information. The decision does not seem to have addressed these, and hopefully this decision will get overturned at some point based on that and other omissions.
In short, I ask to be your friend, and allowed to see your profile, you decide to say yes or no. If you don't know me, or don't know you can trust me, you should say no. But you may be an attention whore and enjoy the high friend count, so you allow people you don't know personally to be your friend. You have not made the information public, but at the same time you have given me permission to see it. I don't even have to lie - I just submit a friend request with no explanation and leave it up to you.
If a police officer shows up at my door and I invite him in, he doesn't need a warrant - I opened everything up to him. Your local laws may differ on what can happen as a result of that, but I'd say that the officer can use that information legally for any other enforcement-related purpose. The officer may be allowed to only observe, or video, or audio record, or like a vampire once you invite they can do anything they want to, but they can at least knock on the door, let you decide to open it, and remember anything they see. When you open the door, knowing someone is on the other side, you're removing your expectation of privacy for anything immediately visible or apparent (audible counts too, all the senses do).
How do you see a private profile? Hack something, get the provider to hand over the information, get a warrant and do it right, or undercover detective work. In other words, Bob has a FaceBook "I like Crack" group, with pictures of crack and picture of people doing crack. A normal undercover police person would pretend to be a drug user and get information about the group. Since this is online, the officer asks to join the group and is granted permission because Bob doesn't know any better. Same as opening the door to a cop - if they happen to see something after being invited or allowed in, even under false pretenses like undercover work requires, it is actionable.
A neighbor's child went missing a few years ago and the po-po canvassed the neighborhood. If I had been smoking crack when I answered the door (I have never even been in the same room as crack to my knowledge), I could have been legally arrested, despite the officer not having a warrant and me being in the privacy of my own home. The officer could have ignored it to find the child, or come back later with a warrant (though I probably would have moved out immediately). The child was playing with another neighborhood child, who was noticeably not noticed as being missing, oddly enough, so the situation was resolved.
Apologies, I had typed this a while back and was interrupted and I don't feel like re-checking all replies.
I think you're forgetting that many actors audition for a single role. There are lots of "actors" out there who bring down the average. The problem with this thread is the usual problem with discussions - the lack of specificity or boundary setting.
The average actor will give a terrible performance. To correct that, we can say the average actor who wins the role will give an average performance. Or the average performing actor will give an average performance. If you took all of the actors, all 50k of the non-cited anonymous registered actors, and had them perform whatever they wished in whatever setting they wished, you would have a few remarkable performances, a lot of average performances, and decide to euthanize the rest for the good of humanity. It would be American Idol auditions scale terrible.
So AC's point was, out of 6 billion people, only 50k have officially put any thought into acting. There are probably many more closet cases of "I did a community theatre production of Annie or Wizard of Oz once." But out of those 50k, the best are going to be performing more, probably as much as they can manage to. The not-best actors will win an audition when the role suits them more, or when the best can't make it due to performing on live world-wide television.
So the fundamental assumption we must make is that above-average actors will have more performances, on average, than below-average performers.
To conclude, the "average actor" is not representative of the "average performance".
How does this apply to the argument at hand? One guy says that anyone can read a script (6 billion people) and an actor says nuh-uh it's more like some other number that I can't really decipher, but there are numbers involved other than 6 billion.
Who's wrong? They both are, but because the second guy rambled into incoherence it's hard to pin him down. You can't hand an English script to any of 6 billion people and have it work - some will be too old, too young, or the wrong sex. Or not sound just right for the part. Or they might not even be able to read English, or not pronounce it correctly. Unless you want a foreign accent in there, you're going to need to limit yourself to 400 million, to round up. Gender takes that to 200 million, age maybe makes it 20 million. Then remove people with speech impediments or other reasons not to hire, maybe you're down to 10 million. So the potential pool of voice actors might be 10 million, at most.
Out of those 10 million, how many people could readily study a script, have a conversation with the director, and make a recordable performance? I've spoken with a lot of people, and the clarity of voice and inflection necessary to convey meaning and emotion varies wildly. In my experience, I'd say less than 10 percent, leaving 1 million hypothetically capable people in the pool, of which most are busy in other lines of work.
Of these, the other guy as I've been calling him says 50k actually work - and that's not just voice, that's apparently everything. Whatever calculations were henceforth derived are far more plausible than the 6 million figure, making the second guy more right than wrong. digitig (1056110) took the word average out of context, and the responding AC posted a short version of this overly long comment. Out of context, digitig (1056110) and yourself are correct and you are doing logic correctly. In the context of the conversation, however, you fail. Sorry, I was trying to be polite but that last part just slipped out.
Now, specifically for The Ultimate Fartkno (756456), "stupid monkey" referred to how the actors were being treated, which is the whole point of the article. Voice actors are treated as if they simply follow steps and poop out a result, and fling it at the audience. Your offense is misplaced. Forgive me if I don't stick around, you're not the only person to be wrong on the internet.
Your comment only makes sense if the same people are laughing and becoming enraged. If different people are making different arguments, which is much more likely, your comment makes not even the slightest bit of sense.
If you read this thread, you'll see that many people have differing viewpoints. So it's not appropriate to make a herd mentality assumption when immediate observations contradict that.
Finally, I have seen no substantial discussion of mp3 downloading as it relates to the 4th amendment. If someone were to "make the same argument", it would read "The government cannot snoop my mp3 downloads without a warrant." As far as I know, even at the most paranoid "Carnivore exists and is collecting everything you do online," the chances that they are using that data to find mp3 downloads is fairly remote at this point. It is more likely a collection of the people you talk to regularly. Let's fill in the blanks:
"[mp3] files are reproduced at no cost, so there should be no [copyright] protection for them" "[email] files are reproduced at no cost, so there should be no [warrantless search] protection for them"
If you don't have "Save Settings" / "Load Settings" buttons somewhere in the interface, you should upgrade. I don't use them myself, but I know they are there.
I didn't search for your source, but on the surface your quote does not support "watched pirated movies." Lots of stuff is up there legally - all it takes is an agreement with the copyright holder. A surprising amount of stuff is legal and blessed, and has been for a while. Lacking other data from the article, you would have to show that there were no authorized copies of globetrotters games available in a reasonable period before that interview. It's important to support yourself with quotes and sources and such, but do choose wisely.
Slashdot Mirror
I came to the conclusion that you live in Melbourne, Australia, and that was before I found "melbournefineart". Since several people list their address, it would be fairly easy to associate a few of these with physical locations, and map your tram route. With one end near a residential area and the other in a business area, we can probably determine which is which.
It's fascinating information, though. Purplemonkeydishwasher is represented (multiple times). "stasi" too, that's good. "slowpieceofcrap" is informative, I wonder if netcraft could confirm that one? "pootwoog" is proof this is from Australia - no one else invents words like Aussies do. Oh yes, and it's good to have finally found the "other side of the rabbit hole". A little acting humor in "mycoitpiece"?
"Paul's Face Is A Network" "Paul Gleeson's iMac" "Paul Beardsell's iMac" "Scott Crighton's iMac" - this suggests that the iMac automatically names your network somehow. Does this reveal a previously unknown data leak? I can't be arsed to research iMac enough to tell.
I think the data should be grouped case-insensitively - maybe make the most common case the representative one? HOME Home and home would be equivalent - but I suppose we can do that as an exercise to the reader. It would cut down on the number of distinct names.
Congratulations, you just encourage it. Twice, and with multiple replies. The moderation system is designed to account for this stuff. It's designed so you just need a single person with a single mod point to mark it as troll or flamebait, cleaning up the comments for others.
The only thing you've said that makes sense is filtering multiple copies of things. Everything else is heavy-handed censorship type stuff. Police involved for being racist? That's excessive.
Just ignore it. It's going to be harder than ever, because you just fed the troll. Do not feed the trolls. But just ignore it. I get a kick out of it every time. "Oh that again, silly retard, no one reads that." But I was wrong - you read it. Ignore it.
Running, sure. How does it do in the "stopping" category?
"The way they made it" these days is highly compressed, so that it stands out as seeming louder. It also fits the radio or iPod medium better so you don't have to turn it up/down. There are piles of articles going back many years lambasting this technique, which more studios are using for more music. One example below.
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm
Also, lower bitrate mp3 tends to sound fine on standard equipment, but true high fidelity speakers usually makes it easier to hear the compression artifacts. So while I can't tell the difference on my home $20 speakers (which sound quite nice actually), having a DJ table at a wedding party as an example requires big speakers, which usually do good bass, which is what tends to get dropped. Not sure if LAME is as bad as others, but the average mp3 floating about has serious bass distortions.
Either you're inside a wall, trapped under a fat guy, or your cloak is not working. Might I suggest a diet plan?
Slow down, I'm still meditating on the one hand clapping thing and I have to get to the tree falling in a forest without a witness - maybe zen I can answer you.
Obviously to solve that problem you'd only use it for travel. You can slip into someone's room unseen and build a small support structure out of this stuff, located where the person is least likely to look. You can then wait until the person returns, slip in (if not there already) and locate yourself in the support structure, which is out of direct eyesight. There you are free to remove the cloak from your eyeballs only, or any recording devices you have, until seen by the person's peripheral vision. A quick restoration of the cloak and you are invisible again, and the person thinks they simply hallucinated.
For the shower room application, you would need to ensure waterproofness and fogguplessness before attempting a visit, but it would suffice to plant and retrieve a camera after hours. You don't want to be caught using a transmitter, and the cloak would let you have physical access to bypass that restriction.
Of course, this would require some sort of coordination so you can know in advance if such a structure has already been built, or a camera already installed. I am therefore proud to announce my website cloakedstalkerstradingpost.com which allows you up-to-date information on which premises are prime targets, which have been built already, and which have been identified and disabled by the inhabitants. Our information is only as good as our users, but we also have information sharing agreements with creepy landlords, sons-of-milfs, and carefully screened psychotic ex-lovers, so sign up today for the most comprehensive coverage you can find. Beware other similar sites which promise a lot but fail to deliver. Only $4.99 per month charged automatically to your credit card (with one-time setup fee to cover administrative costs - we work hard, so it's worth it!)
Each month we will feature a review of the current and soon-to-be-announced cloaks available, an anonymous user giving us real-world tips on the other uses for this cloak such as, well whatever someone comes up with, and direct access to streaming NFL Cloaked (yes, since this gets asked a lot, it does look like nothing is happening but if you watch carefully, you can see the football when it is thrown or fumbled - in fact, cloaking the players makes it more likely that fumbles will occur, making the sport infinitely more enjoyable) and a selection of recipes from our users.
Order now and get a first-generation cloak free!*
(*) when the technology is available of course, we are not pre-selling vaporware!
Proof is a construct of logic, as in a mathematical proof. Science is about observations matching a hypothesis, which results in a testable theory. In order to prove the theory we have to put it to a rigorous test. Therefore, Slashdot has decided that we will strap a helmet-cam to your head and send you to Saturn. The cam is so you don't just lie about the T-Rexes. We will have sufficient evidence at that point to conclude that there is no evidence of T-Rexes on Saturn.
In addition, the only scenario under which that is possible, assuming you're talking about Earth dinosaurs and not Saturn dinosaurs, is that the meteor impact 65 million years ago which has been considered the mass extinction point of most of the dinosaurs actually ejected them into space like a drop of water rebounding from impact onto a placid liquid surface, flying them on space rocks in the same manner that Xenu flung earthlike citizens out on spaceships, only less "techy", puncturing a hexagonal space into the clouds which has been recently seen.
Since I made that theory up just now, I know it to be false, proving that the hexagon on Saturn is not related to dinosaurs. Besides, they would not have been able to survive without atmosphere, even if the space rocks did include enough food for the journey.
Therefore the only evidence pointing to dinos on Saturn is your own unsourced statement, which is not only self-serving but made in the same rhetorical style as arguments that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, which btw he has refused to deny and actively sought international protection to hide the very website discussing this. The various legal cases surrounding that claim specifically point this out as parody, and in light of the context of your claim it is logical to conclude that the same judicial and intellectual bodies would conclude that your claim too falls under parody.
Parody only happens when what you are saying is not factually true, therefore we can prove through inductive reasoning that your comment is a pardody, and therefore cannot be true. Hence, the statement "There are T-Rexes on Saturn" is inductively proven false, which was to be demonstrated. If you ask me if I've checked every possible square inch of Saturn for a single counter-example, I will point to this post as demonstration that such extreme measures are not required when it has logically been proven not true.
I find it a little strange that USA prosecuted Microsoft as an illegal leverager of a monopoly - this should have happened sooner. Maybe the IE team wouldn't have been disbanded.
Microsoft put out a crappy browser and then stopped developing it, thinking people would just give up on standards and write for IE. I find that strange as well.
I'm sure there are other aspects which qualify as strange.
Gartner says Windows 7 breaks the rule - they're obviously getting better after 35 years of developing the SAME FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM. I'll give them a break and say it's been since July 1993 for the NT codebase, so that's 17 years of practice to get a first release right.
Read the rest of what? If you're using U****t or Rapidshare or random web sites, or a private FTP or IRC or messenger clients, you're not uploading. Think about that - you assumed that downloading involves some sort of p2p application.
"or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright" does not mean "anything that affects the owner's rights". The term prejudicially is in there for a reason. If I download an audio file so I can extract a fair-use-sized audio clip for educational purposes, this might affect the owner's rights, but not prejudicially.
That last statement kinda outs your bias. I'd have to buy something? You're saying that if I couldn't download copyrighted music I'd have to buy something? Or are you saying that indy artists who give their music away for free, or the internet archive which has piles of legitimately free music, are no longer accessible? I do NOT have to buy anythnig - there is no law requiring that. Fortunately I'm American and don't have a tax on blank media (unless something passed without knowing it), so the blank media I purchase for my DATA files don't go to reward copyright holders for doing absolutely nothing. What would I have to buy? Is Celine Dion a required component of every citizen's music collection? Do I have to buy more than the two Cirque du Soleil DVDs I've already bought? No, I don't have to buy anything - there's plenty of GREAT stuff out there for free.
AVG sucks a lot.
It updates using the C drive, regardless of your profile folder or temp folder settings. I had a 3GB XP installation, with program files on the D: partition. XP SP3 and related files filled up the drive - now AVG can't update. Many complaints on the user forums and the reply is basically eat a bowl of something unpleasant.
Little windows popping up all the time - advertisements, the scan started, scan stopped. It's pretty annoying. Many people have no problem, but if I see something move, even out of the corner of my eye, it gets my attention.
I might have figured this one out, but often you can't stop a scan. A scan you didn't start. I have no scheduled scans, and did not start a shell extension scan. Open it to troubleshoot the above update problems, and it's scanning. What's it scanning? Currently scanning: [blank]. 0 files. Scanning. Stop and pause buttons are clickable, but the animation keeps going and it's scanning whatever. This is in the user forums since version 8, then 8.5 and I saw it in 9. Still not fixed, but they managed to add lots of annoying popup windows and notifications.
AVG used to be the only thing I would recommend, but since about version 8, and the transition from Grisoft to AVG Industries or whatever, it's impossible. My gf saw me fighting with it and refuses to even consider installing it.
I'd rather buy and install an anonymously registered package than hand over registration information. I'm sure the company is legit, but I still don't feel comfortable trusting a company that has access to every file on my drives - hard, floppy, optical, thumb, network - and has registration information with my personal info. Even if it's just an e-mail address, you can do surprising things.
I know, tinfoil hat time - but didn't MySpace just choose to sell user data? Isn't Google data mining for targeted advertising?
You sure about that? If I download something, I'm not the one making a copy, since I don't have the original to copy from. The person with the server is copying it. At worst, you'd be importing. But the law you quoted puts you on the hook for at most importing, and clearly says for sale or rent.
Dust is cheap, why scale down?
Yes, but is it a solution to the problem of people replying to junk posts to get higher page placement? Putting things in context is a highly efficient organizational skill.
You're half right - once they hand down a decision, their interpretation of the law as documented in the majority decision is how the law will work, regardless of the intent.
The people vote for representatives to write and maintain laws for the people. This is not a direct democracy, so your representative is not obligated to do anything you ask, even if 100% of the constituents agree. And then the other congress people can oppose it if their constituents are on the other side, or those other congress people can ignore their constituents as well. The only risk to ignoring constituents is being voted out of office, so you can usually do what the voters want shortly after your campaign ends, and just before election, and in the middle do whatever you want. As long as you think you can spin any attacks the right way, you can do the complete opposite of what your voters want 49% of the time and still be "better than the other guy". Some have stretched that way above the 50% mark.
So the people have to wait out the current term, remember which one is the bad guy, and have more votes against than for the bad guy. And then hope the new guy does what he promised, or else you wait it out again and vote someone else in.
The people never fail - the system was designed so the people can't fail. Mostly because they can't work, either. That's why we are a representative democracy, not direct. That's why we have an electoral college rather than majority rule elections. Short of overthrowing the government, the only "failure" is that the people best qualified to represent the people don't want the job. Lawyers and judges and generally intelligent, well-read people typically don't want to engage in (or maybe even have the skills for) popularity contests. When you run for office, every mistake you made or misstatement or misunderstanding comes out in black and white, regardless of whether they are true, and it can be crushing. Didn't a congress person recently talk about resigning because the process was "too political"? Can't remember who, but the story was funny at the time.
Who would work on this? "Work on this" doesn't mean "create a linux logo like the made for windows one and get people to put it on their boxes." It's not that simple.
The hardware companies would have to add the logo on the box - I don't think it would make sense for an Improv Everywhere type swarm to go placing stickers on boxes on retail shelves. So your question is why aren't hardware people putting "Works with Linux" stickers on their boxes? Pretend someone created one. Well then they would have to support Linux, get open source versions of all of the drivers and test them with the hardware, and probably host their own repository to allow for driver updates so users have the officially supported version(s).
The last thing hardware people want is the phone call "I just bought this and thought I'd try Linux since I heard about it and it's on your box, now what?" In other words, hardware people only want knowledgeable users running Linux. If you know enough to research the hardware and figure out what works on Linux, you're smart enough to find the Linux support section of the hardware web site. If not, they don't want you to find it for the most part, if it even exists.
This goes all the way back to "Don't use a WinModem." There was actually a term for a product which came with missing parts and expected the operating system to implement DSP in software so the modem had less hardware wand was cheaper. In theory, Windows would use the sound card DSP to make up for the modem not having it. A few marginal cards were more expensive, and to differentiate themselves they would often put "Works on operating systems that aren't windows" or even "Works on Linux". Then either linux supported winmodems, or people switched to DSL/cable, and nobody cared. But they were using a standard interface that didn't require special drivers. The type of hardware people care about will require special drivers.
Even if what you say is true... I write a virus, copy an ASCII thing from some other warez release, and make it look legit. People see the torrent, download it, it looks legit because they don't know to check the hashes and all that. They execute my virus, which does not have any hash checks. The virus installs itself, then pops up a "This is not a valid Win32 Executable" message. User thinks oops, corrupted download, I'll just find it elsewhere. Even if they find the same release group, they are highly unlikely to compare my virus with the official cracked release and notice small differences like dates or different pr0pz or credits... and if they do they will take it as an update to an obviously flawed release. Great, this one works. Good job, another virus free warez release! Meanwhile I'm downloading all of their photos they took in a mirror flashing gang signs with a fake tan and pursing their lips. Good times.
In other words, malware won't bother to check those hashes, and most users wouldn't even think about it, so it offers no protection.
No, it doesn't. 4th amendment arguments are about whether something is public or private. Copyright arguments specifically assume that information is public, since if the information is private it cannot be copied. Information which is private does not require copyright protection, and no one ever said e-mail should be handed over solely because it's easy to do. "[B]oth are legal arguments" specifically makes no logical sense. On the one hand we're talking about constitutional rights, and on the other, intellectual property, and those are very different areas of law. That they are both found in the volumes which make up the entirety of USC is as meaningful as two people being found in the same telephone directory. Actually even less, unless the directory includes every person in the nation.
To clarify: the vast majority of copyright arguments here are based on one or more of the following:
1) Copyright in USA is unconstitutional since it is not "limited" as required (to the view of an individual, who will not live to see anything created in his lifetime public domain.
2) Copyright violations typically do not harm the company, certainly not in the amounts claimed, because (most) people would either not purchase the product, or use free alternatives.
3) The business model of creating digital content which is easily copied and treating it as if it were a tangible good makes no sense, and companies should update their business model. Specifically, it costs a lot of money to copy a book, even after initial machinery is acquired. The marginal cost of copying a digital CD or software installer is whatever you are paying for download if metered, or zero if unmetered or being transferred locally.
4) Civil disobedience to protest unfair copyright laws including the copyright length as above, DMCA which limits what you can do with what you pay for, DRM which makes legit users suffer and illegit customers have it easier, or overly restrictive EULA type agreements.
None of this applies to 4th amendment rights, nor to this case in particular. Is there an argument I forgot other than the fatally flawed "Information wants to be free" line?
There are a few people who will say "pirate everything" just as there are a few who say "read all of my online activity if it helps catch terrorists", but if you think about it, those people are more likely to be mutually exclusive.
And I should have further posted out the incorrect argument you used: Uncle Same is making the same argument about email; it's just electrons, reproducible at no cost. The argument made is that when you turn over information to a third party it becomes public, and an e-mail is essentially as private as a postcard. Most ISPs have a clause which says that information may be turned over to a law enforcement agency for the purposes of solving or preventing crimes, so a customer should have the opposite of an expectation of privacy unless that clause is omitted, which is rare. You send an e-mail to your ISP, police ask for it, the ISP decides do I hand this over or ask for a warrant? And it's less expensive to fight because that clause allows turnover. So the third party can divulge information the sender did not intend to have divulged. This is not the exact argument made in the decision, but it is a fairly decent example based on the case law referenced in the decision. I'm not saying it's a valid argument, I'm saying that's the decision.
To me, an e-mail is transmitted by wires which must be "tapped" in order to be read, and cannot be observed otherwise, so the analogy is flawed. Further, this was a (state) subpoena, not a request, and compliance is required under threat of punishment, which makes this coercion rather than volunteered information. The decision does not seem to have addressed these, and hopefully this decision will get overturned at some point based on that and other omissions.
In short, I ask to be your friend, and allowed to see your profile, you decide to say yes or no. If you don't know me, or don't know you can trust me, you should say no. But you may be an attention whore and enjoy the high friend count, so you allow people you don't know personally to be your friend. You have not made the information public, but at the same time you have given me permission to see it. I don't even have to lie - I just submit a friend request with no explanation and leave it up to you.
If a police officer shows up at my door and I invite him in, he doesn't need a warrant - I opened everything up to him. Your local laws may differ on what can happen as a result of that, but I'd say that the officer can use that information legally for any other enforcement-related purpose. The officer may be allowed to only observe, or video, or audio record, or like a vampire once you invite they can do anything they want to, but they can at least knock on the door, let you decide to open it, and remember anything they see. When you open the door, knowing someone is on the other side, you're removing your expectation of privacy for anything immediately visible or apparent (audible counts too, all the senses do).
How do you see a private profile? Hack something, get the provider to hand over the information, get a warrant and do it right, or undercover detective work. In other words, Bob has a FaceBook "I like Crack" group, with pictures of crack and picture of people doing crack. A normal undercover police person would pretend to be a drug user and get information about the group. Since this is online, the officer asks to join the group and is granted permission because Bob doesn't know any better. Same as opening the door to a cop - if they happen to see something after being invited or allowed in, even under false pretenses like undercover work requires, it is actionable.
A neighbor's child went missing a few years ago and the po-po canvassed the neighborhood. If I had been smoking crack when I answered the door (I have never even been in the same room as crack to my knowledge), I could have been legally arrested, despite the officer not having a warrant and me being in the privacy of my own home. The officer could have ignored it to find the child, or come back later with a warrant (though I probably would have moved out immediately). The child was playing with another neighborhood child, who was noticeably not noticed as being missing, oddly enough, so the situation was resolved.
Apologies, I had typed this a while back and was interrupted and I don't feel like re-checking all replies.
I think you're forgetting that many actors audition for a single role. There are lots of "actors" out there who bring down the average. The problem with this thread is the usual problem with discussions - the lack of specificity or boundary setting.
The average actor will give a terrible performance. To correct that, we can say the average actor who wins the role will give an average performance. Or the average performing actor will give an average performance. If you took all of the actors, all 50k of the non-cited anonymous registered actors, and had them perform whatever they wished in whatever setting they wished, you would have a few remarkable performances, a lot of average performances, and decide to euthanize the rest for the good of humanity. It would be American Idol auditions scale terrible.
So AC's point was, out of 6 billion people, only 50k have officially put any thought into acting. There are probably many more closet cases of "I did a community theatre production of Annie or Wizard of Oz once." But out of those 50k, the best are going to be performing more, probably as much as they can manage to. The not-best actors will win an audition when the role suits them more, or when the best can't make it due to performing on live world-wide television.
So the fundamental assumption we must make is that above-average actors will have more performances, on average, than below-average performers.
To conclude, the "average actor" is not representative of the "average performance".
How does this apply to the argument at hand? One guy says that anyone can read a script (6 billion people) and an actor says nuh-uh it's more like some other number that I can't really decipher, but there are numbers involved other than 6 billion.
Who's wrong? They both are, but because the second guy rambled into incoherence it's hard to pin him down. You can't hand an English script to any of 6 billion people and have it work - some will be too old, too young, or the wrong sex. Or not sound just right for the part. Or they might not even be able to read English, or not pronounce it correctly. Unless you want a foreign accent in there, you're going to need to limit yourself to 400 million, to round up. Gender takes that to 200 million, age maybe makes it 20 million. Then remove people with speech impediments or other reasons not to hire, maybe you're down to 10 million. So the potential pool of voice actors might be 10 million, at most.
Out of those 10 million, how many people could readily study a script, have a conversation with the director, and make a recordable performance? I've spoken with a lot of people, and the clarity of voice and inflection necessary to convey meaning and emotion varies wildly. In my experience, I'd say less than 10 percent, leaving 1 million hypothetically capable people in the pool, of which most are busy in other lines of work.
Of these, the other guy as I've been calling him says 50k actually work - and that's not just voice, that's apparently everything. Whatever calculations were henceforth derived are far more plausible than the 6 million figure, making the second guy more right than wrong. digitig (1056110) took the word average out of context, and the responding AC posted a short version of this overly long comment. Out of context, digitig (1056110) and yourself are correct and you are doing logic correctly. In the context of the conversation, however, you fail. Sorry, I was trying to be polite but that last part just slipped out.
Now, specifically for The Ultimate Fartkno (756456), "stupid monkey" referred to how the actors were being treated, which is the whole point of the article. Voice actors are treated as if they simply follow steps and poop out a result, and fling it at the audience. Your offense is misplaced. Forgive me if I don't stick around, you're not the only person to be wrong on the internet.
Your comment only makes sense if the same people are laughing and becoming enraged. If different people are making different arguments, which is much more likely, your comment makes not even the slightest bit of sense.
If you read this thread, you'll see that many people have differing viewpoints. So it's not appropriate to make a herd mentality assumption when immediate observations contradict that.
Finally, I have seen no substantial discussion of mp3 downloading as it relates to the 4th amendment. If someone were to "make the same argument", it would read "The government cannot snoop my mp3 downloads without a warrant." As far as I know, even at the most paranoid "Carnivore exists and is collecting everything you do online," the chances that they are using that data to find mp3 downloads is fairly remote at this point. It is more likely a collection of the people you talk to regularly. Let's fill in the blanks:
"[mp3] files are reproduced at no cost, so there should be no [copyright] protection for them"
"[email] files are reproduced at no cost, so there should be no [warrantless search] protection for them"
Is that the same argument?
If you don't have "Save Settings" / "Load Settings" buttons somewhere in the interface, you should upgrade. I don't use them myself, but I know they are there.
I didn't search for your source, but on the surface your quote does not support "watched pirated movies." Lots of stuff is up there legally - all it takes is an agreement with the copyright holder. A surprising amount of stuff is legal and blessed, and has been for a while. Lacking other data from the article, you would have to show that there were no authorized copies of globetrotters games available in a reasonable period before that interview. It's important to support yourself with quotes and sources and such, but do choose wisely.