The way I figure it, the more bizarre the better. We learn a lot more from the systems that challenge our conventional definitions than ones that tend to fit what we already think we know.
It's not particularly unusual for a side in a legal proceeding to attempt to exceed what they're allowed to do. It's kind of a part of the adversarial justice system. Twitter now files a motion to quash the subpoena based on whatever reasoning they choose, and we go from there.
Protesting doesn't always work. It's not a novel concept. Doing things to break the law aren't going to get them what they want in this case either. You're not always going to get what you want, no matter how you try and get it.
The reality of the situation is that UK's budget deficit in 2010 was almost 12% of GDP. Of course some things are going to get cut. I'm not sure why the students are so surprised. Budgets across the board in the UK are getting slashed. They can be pissed off all they want and protest to express their feelings, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, just that going out and breaking the law doesn't make anything better. It's a knee-jerk response that helps no one.
I take it you haven't touched your CFLs/Fluorescents or LEDs in a while. Both generate heat, it's just considerably less than traditional incandescents.
From Google's twitter:
"@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."
I mean, besides being obviously anti-MS (standard/. fare).
If you look at MS's financials and check the annual reports, it doesn't much look like a company that has been "tanking in recent years". Most companies would kill for the revenue growth and operating margin Microsoft has had since 2005. Tanking in recent years, my ass.
You've got a good point - which is why I've tried it without my SD card inserted. You can make new bookmarks, but it won't store an image. The image it does show is a picture of an SD card with a '?' next to it. Similar for any images of history items. It will try to use cached images when possible, so clear that and you'll see what I have. (I hope)
Well, annoying back up comment.
On two of the three machines I have here at work, it defaults to I/H for the internal/external storage. The third machine doesn't exhibit this behavior.:(
Then you'd be out $100. I'm even posting from the phone... now there's now way I could collect nor is there any evidence I could give you that you'd take. The screen cap that BGR is using is even from the external SD. Drive h: is the default letter for external SD. I'm not the only one saying this.
Besides DARPA, the very idea of "despite fears that the move marks another stage in the militarisation of cyberspace" assumes that other countries haven't already taken this step, just not quite as publicly. In my mind, it just means that the US government is actually taking a serious threat... seriously.
Until 4G actually meets the speeds I can get currently (20 Mbps down, 5 Mbps up), I'm not sure I see the point in trading providers.
I do hope this leads to improved service due to improved competition and the like, though.
Additionally, the history of the original post looks like this:
See/. article.
Remember hearing something about weapons in the vid.
Google that.
Find unfortunate site in question. It has stills from the video that I was looking for.
Verify against YouTube vid successfully.
Post link to site, since it shows stills so the won't have to be looked up by anyone following it.
????
Get reamed as a bigot.
In hindsight, I probably should have looked around the rest of the site to see what I was else linking against. I verified the pics against the source video, so it didn't even cross my mind.
Anyways, that's the end of my piece here on this. If the above process makes me a bigot, so be it.
Same evidence, different source. I had a coherent response regarding "throwing the baby out with the washwater" with regards to sources and information. Short: Disagreeing with a source's perceived bias isn't grounds for an indiscriminate throwing out of any evidence or ideas said source may have. It does change the level of scrutiny required, however.
You're still using ad hominem regardless of your squirming around the issue otherwise. I'm automatically a bigot, even though you know precisely nothing about me (other than I choose poorly when linking to a site). You apply this label to me, and that allows you to toss out any evidence I supply. Never mind the fact that there are multiple other sources such as the original video with timestamps of the stills or the Dept of the Army incident report with exactly the same evidence. This is what's wrong with politics in general. The attitude of "I don't agree with you, therefore anything you have to say is irrelevant" is the poison in the well of the political process. To go on record, I'm absolutely not a fan of either of the major US political parties. They're both too far to the extremes for me, but it doesn't mean I'm going to indiscriminately throw out any idea either has. I'm actually going to evaluate them on the merits, which so few people seem to do these days.
No, you're definitely still using an ad hominem fallacy, regardless of your attempts to justify yourself. You're not addressing any of the evidence, but rather addressing a perceived bias.
The site definitely has an axe to grind, and I'm certainly not condoning or supporting the commentary on this, but it does clearly illustrate shots from the video that certainly look like people carrying weapons. Don't let your bias against a source destroy any useful value. Take it with a grain of salt, yes. However, examine each case on the merits. I'd wager we wouldn't find much else of value here, but that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the washwater.
Example: I think the major political parties in the United States are a bunch of whack jobs pushing their own agendas rather than what's good for the country in general. That doesn't mean I'm going to across the board ignore every idea the have to say without evaluating it because of a "consider the source" attitude. Again, it means taking careful evaluation of the idea or evidence, but throwing things out indiscriminately because you don't like a potential source is exactly what's wrong in politics.
I wonder what your response would have been had I simply cited the times in the video of the weapons shots, rather than just linking somewhere that had the times and the stills...
Ad hominem much? I don't much care for anything else on the site, but the pictures don't lie. Match it up to the YouTube video. It's pretty damned clear.
Vote with your wallet. Buying it after the crack is finally available just makes them think it's working out for them. Assassin's Creed 2, Settlers 7, and R.U.S.E. all looked like games I would want, but now I'm not going to buy them period. Truly lost sales is the only thing that'll get through to these idiots. You know, once they finally get past the "blaming piracy for our epically declining sales" bit. Hell, this is the same reason I'm not touching C&C 4 as much as I'd like to (I have the other 3). EA decided to copy Ubisoft's DRM scheme with this game. Fuck them.
I don't believe it has anything to do with lazy or "couldn't find the the time". People got bored with the idea, as much as that thought boggles my mind. The movie, Apollo 13, covered some of it in passing. People weren't tuning in to watch about it much until something went wrong. The hype with space was beating the USSR to putting a man on the moon, and once that was over with, people lost interest. We have people to this day that think that any space program isn't worth the money. Waning public interest in space and lots of political self interest (let's buy some more votes with social programs!) are really to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I figure it, the more bizarre the better. We learn a lot more from the systems that challenge our conventional definitions than ones that tend to fit what we already think we know.
It's not particularly unusual for a side in a legal proceeding to attempt to exceed what they're allowed to do. It's kind of a part of the adversarial justice system. Twitter now files a motion to quash the subpoena based on whatever reasoning they choose, and we go from there.
Protesting doesn't always work. It's not a novel concept. Doing things to break the law aren't going to get them what they want in this case either. You're not always going to get what you want, no matter how you try and get it.
The reality of the situation is that UK's budget deficit in 2010 was almost 12% of GDP. Of course some things are going to get cut. I'm not sure why the students are so surprised. Budgets across the board in the UK are getting slashed. They can be pissed off all they want and protest to express their feelings, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, just that going out and breaking the law doesn't make anything better. It's a knee-jerk response that helps no one.
Well, judging from the video, someone should also straighten out his wife on the issue.
I take it you haven't touched your CFLs/Fluorescents or LEDs in a while. Both generate heat, it's just considerably less than traditional incandescents.
Where's my (+1, awesome) mod?
From Google's twitter: "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."
I mean, besides being obviously anti-MS (standard /. fare).
If you look at MS's financials and check the annual reports, it doesn't much look like a company that has been "tanking in recent years". Most companies would kill for the revenue growth and operating margin Microsoft has had since 2005. Tanking in recent years, my ass.
You've got a good point - which is why I've tried it without my SD card inserted. You can make new bookmarks, but it won't store an image. The image it does show is a picture of an SD card with a '?' next to it. Similar for any images of history items. It will try to use cached images when possible, so clear that and you'll see what I have. (I hope)
Well, annoying back up comment. :(
On two of the three machines I have here at work, it defaults to I/H for the internal/external storage. The third machine doesn't exhibit this behavior.
Just tried this. Doesn't store on internal memory, the thumbnail is just a picture of an SD card with a "?" next to it, instead of a thumbnail.
Then you'd be out $100. I'm even posting from the phone... now there's now way I could collect nor is there any evidence I could give you that you'd take. The screen cap that BGR is using is even from the external SD. Drive h: is the default letter for external SD. I'm not the only one saying this.
The article is 100% incorrect. I have the Incredible and they're stored on the external SD card. The article is a load of FUD from Boy Genius.
Besides DARPA, the very idea of "despite fears that the move marks another stage in the militarisation of cyberspace" assumes that other countries haven't already taken this step, just not quite as publicly. In my mind, it just means that the US government is actually taking a serious threat... seriously.
If only I had mod points. This is exactly what I was thinking.
Until 4G actually meets the speeds I can get currently (20 Mbps down, 5 Mbps up), I'm not sure I see the point in trading providers. I do hope this leads to improved service due to improved competition and the like, though.
All good. Unlike others around here, you can be reasoned with. :)
Wall Street Journal:
Online + Printed: $2.99/week
iPad only: $3.99/week
Anyone else see the problem here?
In hindsight, I probably should have looked around the rest of the site to see what I was else linking against. I verified the pics against the source video, so it didn't even cross my mind.
Anyways, that's the end of my piece here on this. If the above process makes me a bigot, so be it.
Talderas has a link to the actual incident report from the military with the images.
Same evidence, different source. I had a coherent response regarding "throwing the baby out with the washwater" with regards to sources and information. Short: Disagreeing with a source's perceived bias isn't grounds for an indiscriminate throwing out of any evidence or ideas said source may have. It does change the level of scrutiny required, however.
You're still using ad hominem regardless of your squirming around the issue otherwise. I'm automatically a bigot, even though you know precisely nothing about me (other than I choose poorly when linking to a site). You apply this label to me, and that allows you to toss out any evidence I supply. Never mind the fact that there are multiple other sources such as the original video with timestamps of the stills or the Dept of the Army incident report with exactly the same evidence. This is what's wrong with politics in general. The attitude of "I don't agree with you, therefore anything you have to say is irrelevant" is the poison in the well of the political process. To go on record, I'm absolutely not a fan of either of the major US political parties. They're both too far to the extremes for me, but it doesn't mean I'm going to indiscriminately throw out any idea either has. I'm actually going to evaluate them on the merits, which so few people seem to do these days.
No, you're definitely still using an ad hominem fallacy, regardless of your attempts to justify yourself. You're not addressing any of the evidence, but rather addressing a perceived bias.
The site definitely has an axe to grind, and I'm certainly not condoning or supporting the commentary on this, but it does clearly illustrate shots from the video that certainly look like people carrying weapons. Don't let your bias against a source destroy any useful value. Take it with a grain of salt, yes. However, examine each case on the merits. I'd wager we wouldn't find much else of value here, but that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the washwater.
Example: I think the major political parties in the United States are a bunch of whack jobs pushing their own agendas rather than what's good for the country in general. That doesn't mean I'm going to across the board ignore every idea the have to say without evaluating it because of a "consider the source" attitude. Again, it means taking careful evaluation of the idea or evidence, but throwing things out indiscriminately because you don't like a potential source is exactly what's wrong in politics.
I wonder what your response would have been had I simply cited the times in the video of the weapons shots, rather than just linking somewhere that had the times and the stills...
Ad hominem much? I don't much care for anything else on the site, but the pictures don't lie. Match it up to the YouTube video. It's pretty damned clear.
Who's running the propaganda?
Find your still frames here:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php
Definitely looks like an AK-47 and an RPG to me.
Vote with your wallet. Buying it after the crack is finally available just makes them think it's working out for them. Assassin's Creed 2, Settlers 7, and R.U.S.E. all looked like games I would want, but now I'm not going to buy them period. Truly lost sales is the only thing that'll get through to these idiots. You know, once they finally get past the "blaming piracy for our epically declining sales" bit. Hell, this is the same reason I'm not touching C&C 4 as much as I'd like to (I have the other 3). EA decided to copy Ubisoft's DRM scheme with this game. Fuck them.
I don't believe it has anything to do with lazy or "couldn't find the the time". People got bored with the idea, as much as that thought boggles my mind. The movie, Apollo 13, covered some of it in passing. People weren't tuning in to watch about it much until something went wrong. The hype with space was beating the USSR to putting a man on the moon, and once that was over with, people lost interest. We have people to this day that think that any space program isn't worth the money. Waning public interest in space and lots of political self interest (let's buy some more votes with social programs!) are really to blame.