Thanks for the recommendation. I don't like the idea of GnuPrivacyGuard (GnuPG) corrupting my files, but I didn't find any reports of problems on google so I'll give it a test
In the UK they lock you in jail for year-after-year until you give them the encryption key. So much for the right to be presumed innocent until PROVED guilty.
How ironic that the U.S. Cyber Crime unit is breaking U.S. Law to accomplish their goal (modding the hardware and installing Linux). Hmmm. But I doubt Sony or anybody else will file suit. They don't want to go after a big target like the United States government.
Wait. (goes back to re-read). They are using videogame consoles to run their server? Seriously??? Wow. I guess the PS3 is more powerful than I realized; maybe I ought to go buy one. Any good games (not on Xbox) for the PS3?
I think the difference is intent. Star Wars 1977 CGI was intended to *look* like CGI (computerized), whereas the CGI in Tron was supposed to look like the real world. Ditto the CGI used in Last Starfighter.
No he drew almost-everything by hand, tracing the photographs of the models. I thought it was interesting it took the computer 2 minutes to display just 1/24th second of the animation. Slow and time-consuming.
>>>You could say the exact same thing on *every* tax.
No. A tax that benefits every citizen, such as for a protective police force, is legitimate tax. Taxes that only benefit ~5$ of the population (i.e. giving them free stuff), are illegitimate. It's theft of labor from the whole to a few - just as surely as serfdom was theft of labor.
>>>This is an important illustration of the Rule: "Libertarians are the stupidest people on the planet."
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I'm not Libertarian. If you want to address me, then address ME, not some trumped-up stereotype you have in your head. That makes you no better than if you said, "C64love is French therefore he must have voted for Sarkozy." Stop prejuding people based upon stereotypes. Anyway.....
I work my ass off earning money, as do nearly-all my neighbors. That's OUR money. We earned it. Why should we have to give-up our sweat & labor to somebody else? That's no different than if that person held me at gunpoint and mugged me. The only difference is he's using the government as his gun.
And no I don't think "all" taxes are theft. Taxes that are universally beneficial to every citizen, like funds for police to protect homes, are just fine with me. Also constitutional.
Why are you talking about the utility? I don't give a frak about megacorps. I was discussing the neighbors.
They are the ones who will see an additional tax on their bills (universal service fee) in order to provide the extra funds to install broadband to people who have just dialup. It's the average Joes who are having their wallets raided (and therefore rights violated).
>>>Take me a week, tops, to fuck all that up for you with mere words.
Zebulon J. Brodie Centreville, Maryland Dunkin Donuts
Actually there's no need to waste your time since this guy was already smeared. This case thrown-out as "protected speech". The Maryland court ruled that posters may call the shop "dirty and unsanitary-looking, and permitting trash to pollute the nearby waterway", even if it has potential to cause economic harm. 1st Amendment Right upheld
If I were this shop owner, rather than sue somebody, I would use MY right of free speech to disprove the accusation. In other words I would post photos of my establishment, showing that it is clean.
On the other hand if my store is dirty, then what right do I have to silence my customers opinions? I have no such right.
>>>Nobody is forced to work - just that if you do, part of the condition is that you have to pay a tax
This argument presumes the government existed first, the people later, and that government "gives" us our jobs, and ~40% is the fee for that privilege.
I have a differing view - the people were first, converting our body's labor to property is a natural right, and the government's officials should be thanking us for *allowing* them to have jobs, rather than fire the whole lot of them.
Actually I was saying they are NOT rights. They are privileges. The English language has somewhere around 20,000 words... let's use the proper words with the proper meaning.:-)
So like I said, this law VIOLATES human rights. It requires stealing money from your neighbors to fund the installation costs of broadband. That's an infringement upon their property and labor rights.
>>>they could have gone for either of the others; but nothing obviously prevents them from going with this one.
Yes there is. The third option requires stealing money from neighbors to fund the installation costs. i.e. The third one is a violation of property and labor rights.
>>>I have a right to free speech however I do not have the right to libel anybody I wish.
You do in the land of the free (U.S.). Libel is extremely hard to prove, such that the accuser must prove he was finanically harmed by the words. If he can not prove it, then the case is thrown out. Few bother to sue for such a triviality. ----- Personally I think libel/slander laws are stupid. The right of free speech should be absolute, unless you're on somebody else's property (like a theater). If I insult Dunkin Donuts as having cockroaches in their kitchen, well that sucks for them, but they shouldn't have a right to block me from speaking my opinion. Maybe I really did see cockroaches in their kitchen.
Anyway back on topic:
>>>Fox News has a right to free speech, but they don't have the right to force people on the air...
Okay. Likewise citizens have a right to buy internet, but they don't have a right to force corporations or their neighbors to hook them up to high-speed. Dialup works just fine.
Okay maybe not that far, but for decades I've been hearing women say men don't pay attention or listen. That works both ways. Spend time with ME not your phone
>>>And it's exactly how the government systems of all the Western world work practically everywhere (including USA). The government is not forced to make a referendum about a law (needing the vote from the people), they only have to do it if they want, otherwise, as long as the constituent assembly of the country chooses so by majority, the law passes. >>>
Not correct. USA's Supreme Law says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Congress can not just arbitrarily add new powers to itself. First it must propose an amendment, and then get permission from 3/4 of the States to add that amendment to the central Constitution.
I assume the Lisbon Treaty has a similar mechanism. The EU can not just arbitrarily grab power from Britain, France, Spain, et cetera. But I have not read the thing, so I don't know.
>>>People who talk about "rights" are selfish, self-entitled, and most importantly, clueless.
Spoken like a man who knows absolutely nothing about the last 2500 years of philosophy. YOU are the one who is "clueless" and don't seem to realize it. "Right to life" simply means "right not to be killed". It doesn't mean you have the right to rob your neighbors' wallets and buy yourself replacement organs to extend your life eternally. No man has a right to harm another.
Even legalistic individuals recognize that rights exist without law. This was the basis for the Nuremberg and Japanese War Crime trials - even though the Jews and Chinese had no legally-protected rights inside Germany, Japan, or the occupied territories, they still had the right to life simply by being human.
Well that explains the existence of the China Firewall. The right of free speech & access to information is revocable "under some circumstances"
I on the other hand think a right is never revocable. You might as well be talking about revoking my right to have a penis. It makes no logical sense to say that an innate quality of the human body can be removed.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the recommendation. I don't like the idea of GnuPrivacyGuard (GnuPG) corrupting my files, but I didn't find any reports of problems on google so I'll give it a test
>>>Go download
"Awwww! You're gonna get in trou-ble! Daddy that man said a baaaad word."
Yes I know honey.
+1 funny? Or +1 informative.
In the UK they lock you in jail for year-after-year until you give them the encryption key. So much for the right to be presumed innocent until PROVED guilty.
Just curious: ...how does one encrypt files with a password? Any free software available for that task?
P.S.
How ironic that the U.S. Cyber Crime unit is breaking U.S. Law to accomplish their goal (modding the hardware and installing Linux). Hmmm. But I doubt Sony or anybody else will file suit. They don't want to go after a big target like the United States government.
Wait. (goes back to re-read). They are using videogame consoles to run their server? Seriously??? Wow.
I guess the PS3 is more powerful than I realized; maybe I ought to go buy one. Any good games (not on Xbox) for the PS3?
Well.
At least if the DNA data was given to the government we know it would be safe and never used for nefarious purposes.
.
hahahahahahahaahahahahahaha!
L8r
I think the difference is intent. Star Wars 1977 CGI was intended to *look* like CGI (computerized), whereas the CGI in Tron was supposed to look like the real world. Ditto the CGI used in Last Starfighter.
No he drew almost-everything by hand, tracing the photographs of the models. I thought it was interesting it took the computer 2 minutes to display just 1/24th second of the animation. Slow and time-consuming.
~3 years later computers could do these graphics in realtime:
http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/video/batlzone.swf
Flash movie of Battlezone Arcade in action: http://www.thelogbook.com/pdfmedia/1980/battlezone/ - Atarisoft version on C=64: http://www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/b/battlezone_02.gif
Other vector-based games: http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/category/arcade/vector/
>>>You could say the exact same thing on *every* tax.
No. A tax that benefits every citizen, such as for a protective police force, is legitimate tax.
Taxes that only benefit ~5$ of the population (i.e. giving them free stuff), are illegitimate.
It's theft of labor from the whole to a few - just as surely as serfdom was theft of labor.
>>>This is an important illustration of the Rule: "Libertarians are the stupidest people on the planet."
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I'm not Libertarian. If you want to address me, then address ME, not some trumped-up stereotype you have in your head. That makes you no better than if you said, "C64love is French therefore he must have voted for Sarkozy." Stop prejuding people based upon stereotypes. Anyway.....
I work my ass off earning money, as do nearly-all my neighbors. That's OUR money. We earned it. Why should we have to give-up our sweat & labor to somebody else? That's no different than if that person held me at gunpoint and mugged me. The only difference is he's using the government as his gun.
And no I don't think "all" taxes are theft. Taxes that are universally beneficial to every citizen, like funds for police to protect homes, are just fine with me. Also constitutional.
>>>It is too expensive to maintain copper in sparsely populated areas when people are mainly using cellphones
Okay. So now Northern Finns have dialup over their cellphones instead of wired phones. (shrug). Same difference. My original statement was correct.
Why are you talking about the utility? I don't give a frak about megacorps. I was discussing the neighbors.
They are the ones who will see an additional tax on their bills (universal service fee) in order to provide the extra funds to install broadband to people who have just dialup. It's the average Joes who are having their wallets raided (and therefore rights violated).
>>>Take me a week, tops, to fuck all that up for you with mere words.
Zebulon J. Brodie
Centreville, Maryland
Dunkin Donuts
Actually there's no need to waste your time since this guy was already smeared. This case thrown-out as "protected speech". The Maryland court ruled that posters may call the shop "dirty and unsanitary-looking, and permitting trash to pollute the nearby waterway", even if it has potential to cause economic harm. 1st Amendment Right upheld
If I were this shop owner, rather than sue somebody, I would use MY right of free speech to disprove the accusation. In other words I would post photos of my establishment, showing that it is clean.
On the other hand if my store is dirty, then what right do I have to silence my customers opinions? I have no such right.
>>>Nobody is forced to work - just that if you do, part of the condition is that you have to pay a tax
This argument presumes the government existed first, the people later, and that government "gives" us our jobs, and ~40% is the fee for that privilege.
I have a differing view - the people were first, converting our body's labor to property is a natural right, and the government's officials should be thanking us for *allowing* them to have jobs, rather than fire the whole lot of them.
Actually I was saying they are NOT rights. They are privileges. The English language has somewhere around 20,000 words... let's use the proper words with the proper meaning. :-)
Um. Okay.
So like I said, this law VIOLATES human rights. It requires stealing money from your neighbors to fund the installation costs of broadband. That's an infringement upon their property and labor rights.
>>>they could have gone for either of the others; but nothing obviously prevents them from going with this one.
Yes there is. The third option requires stealing money from neighbors to fund the installation costs. i.e. The third one is a violation of property and labor rights.
>>>I have a right to free speech however I do not have the right to libel anybody I wish.
You do in the land of the free (U.S.). Libel is extremely hard to prove, such that the accuser must prove he was finanically harmed by the words. If he can not prove it, then the case is thrown out. Few bother to sue for such a triviality. ----- Personally I think libel/slander laws are stupid. The right of free speech should be absolute, unless you're on somebody else's property (like a theater). If I insult Dunkin Donuts as having cockroaches in their kitchen, well that sucks for them, but they shouldn't have a right to block me from speaking my opinion. Maybe I really did see cockroaches in their kitchen.
Anyway back on topic:
>>>Fox News has a right to free speech, but they don't have the right to force people on the air...
Okay. Likewise citizens have a right to buy internet, but they don't have a right to force corporations or their neighbors to hook them up to high-speed. Dialup works just fine.
I would divorce her
Okay maybe not that far, but for decades I've been hearing women say men don't pay attention or listen. That works both ways. Spend time with ME not your phone
>>>And it's exactly how the government systems of all the Western world work practically everywhere (including USA). The government is not forced to make a referendum about a law (needing the vote from the people), they only have to do it if they want, otherwise, as long as the constituent assembly of the country chooses so by majority, the law passes.
>>>
Not correct. USA's Supreme Law says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Congress can not just arbitrarily add new powers to itself. First it must propose an amendment, and then get permission from 3/4 of the States to add that amendment to the central Constitution.
I assume the Lisbon Treaty has a similar mechanism. The EU can not just arbitrarily grab power from Britain, France, Spain, et cetera. But I have not read the thing, so I don't know.
>>>People who talk about "rights" are selfish, self-entitled, and most importantly, clueless.
Spoken like a man who knows absolutely nothing about the last 2500 years of philosophy. YOU are the one who is "clueless" and don't seem to realize it. "Right to life" simply means "right not to be killed". It doesn't mean you have the right to rob your neighbors' wallets and buy yourself replacement organs to extend your life eternally. No man has a right to harm another.
Even legalistic individuals recognize that rights exist without law. This was the basis for the Nuremberg and Japanese War Crime trials - even though the Jews and Chinese had no legally-protected rights inside Germany, Japan, or the occupied territories, they still had the right to life simply by being human.
Rights are like instincts. They are innate
Well that explains the existence of the China Firewall. The right of free speech & access to information is revocable "under some circumstances"
I on the other hand think a right is never revocable. You might as well be talking about revoking my right to have a penis. It makes no logical sense to say that an innate quality of the human body can be removed.