[quote]blocking people from buying copyrighted goods in other countries and taking them home[\quote]
And just how are they planning to enforce this? I have a goddamn right to buy anything where I want it. If this is enacted, international commerce will fall apart, thanks to the US. A nation, I might add, that already imports more than it exports (1.280 trillion in exports VS 1.948 trillion in imports), and 30.4% of it is in capital goods, such as computers and telecomm equipment, from which areas we get most of our patent infringement suits. One can look at imports as buying abroad, taking home, and selling it again, so this bill would effectively block at the very least 30% of all imports.
At university, when studying about postmodernism (for some reason in a course titled International Political Theory), I felt like the professor was describing quantum mechanics: everything is based on your perceptions.
Unfortunately, I couldn't train myself to perceive those 80 minutes/week away, or perceive a top mark on my final exam...:(
But that doesn't mean the government from which I am withdrawing doesn't have a right to put up a fight.
Actually, it does... since the concept of rights is based upon that which is morally justifiable, not just that which is possible. It is possible to "put up a fight" about all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make it a right. Forcing others to be a part of a government in which they have no interest can in no way be considered a right, but is a rather clear violation of individuals' right to self-determination.
This is a technology site and all, but that really doesn't give you any excuse for sleeping through high school civics.
Actually, it boils down to two fundamental principles: the people's right to self-determination and the principle that the state's integrity is to be kept.
Usually, the higher ranking principle takes precedence, but in this case, we're in a bind, since both were enumerated in the Helsinki Decalogue, as fundamental principles of the international system. If it were this alone, it would seem that all rebellions are inherently unlawful (which they are, by the host nation's laws), but according to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, the territory of a state is invincible as long as it has a representative government. Based on the amount of land the Rebellion (to go with comment #35391530's theme) controls and the overwhelming support, I think it's safe to say Khadaffi's government can no longer be called 'representative'. This means that about 75% of the country is up for grabs by the Rebels, and provided any neighboring nations gets an authorization from the UNSC (which is definitely not going to happen), by others too.
However, legitimate as their republic may be, if it's not acknowledged by other states, it's all for naught. I refer the reader to the history of the tiny pseudo-nation of Sealand. Here there are two schools of thought competing, the constitutive and declarative theory. The constitutive states that the nation becomes a legitimate participant in the international system via the recognition of other nations, while the declarative theory states that the recognition is just that, the nations becomes an sovereign entity via its declaration. Usually, nations do not recognize other nations established through violent means, but as seen by the issue of Kosovo, which was similarly established in an uprising during the Balkan Wars, but was quickly recognized by many as a sovereign nation. It will be interesting to see the responses to this declaration, especially that of the United States.
Bottom line, Benjamindees: while forcing one to be subject to a government is morally objectionable, it is legally perfectly a-okay, provided that government was put in place the majority of the people, or if it was acknowledged as a legitimate government, even if it wasn't elected democratically. Rising up against that government in arms, while morally laudable, and certainly an expression of your right to self-determination, is usually a clear violation of that country's laws, for which the government may rightfully exercise its monopoly over violence. However, if that government loses its representative nature, you are free to rebel to your heart's content, and if you win, you may not even be held accountable, according to international humanitarian law.
Not much respect on my part either, I confess, but what T-Online HU does is kinda low: not only do they do not grant admin access to the router (the default account is only a power user, barred from actions like backing up and upgrading the firmware) while reserving the right to upgrade remotely both on the router and on the STB, but it appears that the WLAN driver of the router is defective by design.
You see, my contract stipulates a two-device limit on one connection, the STB excluded. I had a laptop, a smartphone, and two desktops at the time to be connected. Most of the time, it was the smartphone and the laptop online together, with no problems. But whenever I turned on a third device, the router started throwing TKIP MIC errors every 30 seconds. I permutated through all combinations of devices, and every time, the moment a third device wanted to connect, the WLAN driver went crazy until I brought down the number to two and rebooted the router. So I ended up putting a second router behind the T-Online one on of the CAT5 ports, and spent the better part of the day getting them to play nice with each other (instead of shelling out ~€100/~$128 for an AP).
As for DPI, I'm not sure if they stooped low enough to do that, but given that this isn't the US, I'm inclined to say they don't care for now. My university connection has worse censoring than this, TBH.
Maybe not sharing the connections (that indeed may break the EULA you're under), but TOR is our friend in this case.
Of course, I'm under no illusions that many of you share the connection, even if it's only between several devices. My EULA prohibits even that, with an enforced limit of two devices, in addition to an IPTV set-top box.
No. You need to see what you're retouching, and last time I checked, my finger wasn't see-through. I stand by my point, you need the cursor to be separate from whatever is moving it, otherwise you won't see what you're doing.
As for precision, no. When you have a work area at most as big as a post-it note, you have exactly NO precision to speak of. Sure, you can zoom in as far as you need to move the brush fine enough, but then you won't see what you're doing to the rest of the image.
So no, you cannot do retouch work on a camera touchscreen. A 15" tablet, now that's another thing, but show me a consumer camera with a 15" touchscreen!
Try retouching a picture with only the keyboard mouse enabled, and tell me how it went. Actually, don't bother: even a laptop touchpad makes everything but the crudest corrections impossible, let alone fine cloning. Mouse or tablet, nothing less.
Deffinitely, the 0.1 or 0.2% of people who are professional photographers like you do not have a need for this camera. Nevertheless, the potential clients are the millions of people who just want to take portrait pictures with a point and shoot; such people are the ones who will gladly buy this product.
You misunderstood me. Even with a point-and-shoot, all you'd need is to take the extra 30s (at most) to think a bit, and move yourself or the model a few meters over to get the lights, etc done. Or read the manual, and use the self-timer to avoid the need for the MySpace-angle or flash-in-the-bathroom-mirror (ugh).
Really, most of photography college is optics and art theory (composition, color harmony, Golden Division, that sort of stuff). Even if you're not formally trained, you can shoot good pictures with an amateur camera or even a cellphone camera if you take the time to think it through, set it up, and maybe bend the AI to your will in regards to light measurements.
According to data we've acquired, around 50 percent of our digital camera clients are not satisfied with the way their faces look in a photograph, so we came up with the idea so our clients can fix parts they don't like about their faces after they've taken the picture.
Take it from a professional photographer, 90% of the time, the angle and lighting are all that matter between a good and a bad photo. 8% is mistakes and blemishes that can be corrected in Photoshop/Corel with a bit of cloning (probably going to be bloody hard to do it on a camera, even with a properly sized LCD. The mouse is simply necessary here.), Brightness-Contrast-Intensity modding, gamma, and a few other simple steps. The last 2% are those who are incredibly ugly, and can't be helped...
Anyway, it's pointless for me: I won't buy a new camera, since my Canon 300D is still in perfect order, this feature will probably be incorporated into amateur units, and I can get Photoshop for free.;)
Agreed. I got angry enough when they dropped the http:/// prefix, if the drop the URL bar with no option to return to the old UI, I'm dropping Chrome itself...
[quote]We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People[/quote]
Who the hell are they kidding, "Advocate of the People"? They're nothing more than a bunch of 16-years-old script kiddies with IRC to coordinate them. Granted, quite a big bunch, but they're still only immature assholes.
And I'm willing to bet quite a number of them are also homophobic, just like their current target...
The way I see it, unless one of those holes were pointed straight at us for an extended time, which is impossible due to difference in the orbital velocity of Earth and the rotational velocity of the Sun, we have nothing to worry about, and even then we'd only get a few blanked-out satellites.
Isn't stopping this jailbreak impossible without hardware modification? The keys are factory-injected, onto non-volatile storage, which means to change them, Sony would have to open up the console and physically change the chips. Unless they managed to figure out teleportation, an update won't stop anyone with the keys from flashing custom firmware to the device.
Centralization is not the greatest of my worries. What worries me is that this technology undoubtedly has to talk to the CAN-bus to do its job, and we've all seen how easily the CAN-bus can be made to do someone else's bidding. Like disabling brakes or applying right-side brakes. At 150km/h on the freeway. Good thing the cars talk to each other and share the virus, right?
I'm cool with giving the USAF a big wet slapping regarding their stealth tech, especially since it was coming from a 'former Soviet satellite country', from the 'undeveloped Eastern Europe'.
I'm not cool with innocent people being massacred, especially so if it happened with the full knowledge of the IFOR peacekeepers, and within earshot, while they simply walk away. And I'm exceedingly not cool with my most vivid childhood memories being the sound of artillery fire and bombing runs since I lived some 30 km/20 miles from the border.
Of course they'd say that, anyone can bluff. Problem arises when your bluff gets called and you need to actually down that stealth fighter, which you may or may not be capable of...
You have good taste, sir! But have you ever drank Tokaji? Used to be the wine of the Austrian emperors while there was still an empire, and Louis XIV called it "Wine of kings, king of wines".
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, Stalker in Japan!
[quote]blocking people from buying copyrighted goods in other countries and taking them home[\quote]
And just how are they planning to enforce this? I have a goddamn right to buy anything where I want it. If this is enacted, international commerce will fall apart, thanks to the US. A nation, I might add, that already imports more than it exports (1.280 trillion in exports VS 1.948 trillion in imports), and 30.4% of it is in capital goods, such as computers and telecomm equipment, from which areas we get most of our patent infringement suits. One can look at imports as buying abroad, taking home, and selling it again, so this bill would effectively block at the very least 30% of all imports.
If my computer sees me angry, it should bloody well correct whatever error happened in the first place, or run...
This. I would be in heaven if this happened. For the first time in history, legislation would be made clear, understandable and transparent.
Which is probably why the will never ever implement it...
In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is. ..
At university, when studying about postmodernism (for some reason in a course titled International Political Theory), I felt like the professor was describing quantum mechanics: everything is based on your perceptions.
Unfortunately, I couldn't train myself to perceive those 80 minutes/week away, or perceive a top mark on my final exam... :(
But that doesn't mean the government from which I am withdrawing doesn't have a right to put up a fight.
Actually, it does... since the concept of rights is based upon that which is morally justifiable, not just that which is possible. It is possible to "put up a fight" about all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make it a right. Forcing others to be a part of a government in which they have no interest can in no way be considered a right, but is a rather clear violation of individuals' right to self-determination.
This is a technology site and all, but that really doesn't give you any excuse for sleeping through high school civics.
Actually, it boils down to two fundamental principles: the people's right to self-determination and the principle that the state's integrity is to be kept.
Usually, the higher ranking principle takes precedence, but in this case, we're in a bind, since both were enumerated in the Helsinki Decalogue, as fundamental principles of the international system. If it were this alone, it would seem that all rebellions are inherently unlawful (which they are, by the host nation's laws), but according to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, the territory of a state is invincible as long as it has a representative government. Based on the amount of land the Rebellion (to go with comment #35391530's theme) controls and the overwhelming support, I think it's safe to say Khadaffi's government can no longer be called 'representative'. This means that about 75% of the country is up for grabs by the Rebels, and provided any neighboring nations gets an authorization from the UNSC (which is definitely not going to happen), by others too.
However, legitimate as their republic may be, if it's not acknowledged by other states, it's all for naught. I refer the reader to the history of the tiny pseudo-nation of Sealand. Here there are two schools of thought competing, the constitutive and declarative theory. The constitutive states that the nation becomes a legitimate participant in the international system via the recognition of other nations, while the declarative theory states that the recognition is just that, the nations becomes an sovereign entity via its declaration. Usually, nations do not recognize other nations established through violent means, but as seen by the issue of Kosovo, which was similarly established in an uprising during the Balkan Wars, but was quickly recognized by many as a sovereign nation. It will be interesting to see the responses to this declaration, especially that of the United States.
Bottom line, Benjamindees: while forcing one to be subject to a government is morally objectionable, it is legally perfectly a-okay, provided that government was put in place the majority of the people, or if it was acknowledged as a legitimate government, even if it wasn't elected democratically. Rising up against that government in arms, while morally laudable, and certainly an expression of your right to self-determination, is usually a clear violation of that country's laws, for which the government may rightfully exercise its monopoly over violence. However, if that government loses its representative nature, you are free to rebel to your heart's content, and if you win, you may not even be held accountable, according to international humanitarian law.
Not much respect on my part either, I confess, but what T-Online HU does is kinda low: not only do they do not grant admin access to the router (the default account is only a power user, barred from actions like backing up and upgrading the firmware) while reserving the right to upgrade remotely both on the router and on the STB, but it appears that the WLAN driver of the router is defective by design.
You see, my contract stipulates a two-device limit on one connection, the STB excluded. I had a laptop, a smartphone, and two desktops at the time to be connected. Most of the time, it was the smartphone and the laptop online together, with no problems. But whenever I turned on a third device, the router started throwing TKIP MIC errors every 30 seconds. I permutated through all combinations of devices, and every time, the moment a third device wanted to connect, the WLAN driver went crazy until I brought down the number to two and rebooted the router.
So I ended up putting a second router behind the T-Online one on of the CAT5 ports, and spent the better part of the day getting them to play nice with each other (instead of shelling out ~€100/~$128 for an AP).
As for DPI, I'm not sure if they stooped low enough to do that, but given that this isn't the US, I'm inclined to say they don't care for now. My university connection has worse censoring than this, TBH.
Maybe not sharing the connections (that indeed may break the EULA you're under), but TOR is our friend in this case.
Of course, I'm under no illusions that many of you share the connection, even if it's only between several devices. My EULA prohibits even that, with an enforced limit of two devices, in addition to an IPTV set-top box.
No. You need to see what you're retouching, and last time I checked, my finger wasn't see-through. I stand by my point, you need the cursor to be separate from whatever is moving it, otherwise you won't see what you're doing.
As for precision, no. When you have a work area at most as big as a post-it note, you have exactly NO precision to speak of. Sure, you can zoom in as far as you need to move the brush fine enough, but then you won't see what you're doing to the rest of the image.
So no, you cannot do retouch work on a camera touchscreen. A 15" tablet, now that's another thing, but show me a consumer camera with a 15" touchscreen!
" The mouse is simply necessary here."
hahaha.
Try retouching a picture with only the keyboard mouse enabled, and tell me how it went. Actually, don't bother: even a laptop touchpad makes everything but the crudest corrections impossible, let alone fine cloning. Mouse or tablet, nothing less.
Deffinitely, the 0.1 or 0.2% of people who are professional photographers like you do not have a need for this camera. Nevertheless, the potential clients are the millions of people who just want to take portrait pictures with a point and shoot; such people are the ones who will gladly buy this product.
You misunderstood me. Even with a point-and-shoot, all you'd need is to take the extra 30s (at most) to think a bit, and move yourself or the model a few meters over to get the lights, etc done. Or read the manual, and use the self-timer to avoid the need for the MySpace-angle or flash-in-the-bathroom-mirror (ugh).
Really, most of photography college is optics and art theory (composition, color harmony, Golden Division, that sort of stuff). Even if you're not formally trained, you can shoot good pictures with an amateur camera or even a cellphone camera if you take the time to think it through, set it up, and maybe bend the AI to your will in regards to light measurements.
According to data we've acquired, around 50 percent of our digital camera clients are not satisfied with the way their faces look in a photograph, so we came up with the idea so our clients can fix parts they don't like about their faces after they've taken the picture.
Take it from a professional photographer, 90% of the time, the angle and lighting are all that matter between a good and a bad photo.
8% is mistakes and blemishes that can be corrected in Photoshop/Corel with a bit of cloning (probably going to be bloody hard to do it on a camera, even with a properly sized LCD. The mouse is simply necessary here.), Brightness-Contrast-Intensity modding, gamma, and a few other simple steps.
The last 2% are those who are incredibly ugly, and can't be helped...
Anyway, it's pointless for me: I won't buy a new camera, since my Canon 300D is still in perfect order, this feature will probably be incorporated into amateur units, and I can get Photoshop for free. ;)
Actually, if you leave the mouse on the link for a second, the full address pops out in the status bar.
Agreed. I got angry enough when they dropped the http:/// prefix, if the drop the URL bar with no option to return to the old UI, I'm dropping Chrome itself...
[quote]We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People[/quote]
Who the hell are they kidding, "Advocate of the People"? They're nothing more than a bunch of 16-years-old script kiddies with IRC to coordinate them. Granted, quite a big bunch, but they're still only immature assholes.
And I'm willing to bet quite a number of them are also homophobic, just like their current target...
Does it matter? They're both bad news for us. Maybe replicators more so...
An explosion on the Sun that produces a lens flare. On the Sun. Now that's something...
The way I see it, unless one of those holes were pointed straight at us for an extended time, which is impossible due to difference in the orbital velocity of Earth and the rotational velocity of the Sun, we have nothing to worry about, and even then we'd only get a few blanked-out satellites.
Isn't stopping this jailbreak impossible without hardware modification? The keys are factory-injected, onto non-volatile storage, which means to change them, Sony would have to open up the console and physically change the chips. Unless they managed to figure out teleportation, an update won't stop anyone with the keys from flashing custom firmware to the device.
Centralization is not the greatest of my worries. What worries me is that this technology undoubtedly has to talk to the CAN-bus to do its job, and we've all seen how easily the CAN-bus can be made to do someone else's bidding. Like disabling brakes or applying right-side brakes. At 150km/h on the freeway. Good thing the cars talk to each other and share the virus, right?
Certainly.
As for the new Chinese stealth fighter, it's reported to be an even match for the Raptor
Beijing is making faster-than-expected progress in developing a rival to the U.S. F-22—the world's only fully operational stealth fighter. [...] The Chinese prototype looks like it has "the potential to be a competitor with the F-22 and to be decisively superior to the F-35," said Mr. Fisher. The J-20 has two engines, like the F-22, and is about the same size, while the F-35 is smaller and has only one engine.
As for the HDD, it's supposed to be in the same article too, but I can't find it now, and the page fell apart, so get ready for a tiring read...
Who said so? Certainly not me...
I'm cool with giving the USAF a big wet slapping regarding their stealth tech, especially since it was coming from a 'former Soviet satellite country', from the 'undeveloped Eastern Europe'.
I'm not cool with innocent people being massacred, especially so if it happened with the full knowledge of the IFOR peacekeepers, and within earshot, while they simply walk away.
And I'm exceedingly not cool with my most vivid childhood memories being the sound of artillery fire and bombing runs since I lived some 30 km/20 miles from the border.
Of course they'd say that, anyone can bluff. Problem arises when your bluff gets called and you need to actually down that stealth fighter, which you may or may not be capable of...
You have good taste, sir!
But have you ever drank Tokaji? Used to be the wine of the Austrian emperors while there was still an empire, and Louis XIV called it "Wine of kings, king of wines".