by creating orphan members of the closed organization who out of will to survive create their own organizations using past knowledge to protect themselves and their organization where their previous organization failed.
just because an organization is vulnerable to being shut down doesn't mean the individuals of the organization are also vulnerable to never being allowed to start up again.
I was being sarcastic... I guess that was subtle for the internets.
That said, I was just thinking along the lines of "Eliminate the inefficient organizations and that just means more business for the efficient ones, who will invest that added income better."
Psh! How could putting the inefficient cybercrime organizations out of business EVER backfire and select for better cybercrime organizations? That's just nonsense.
It suggests that CAPTCHAs can narrow the profit margin, but just a few lines above that it says they only cost a dollar to overcome. So these spammers will sell 1000 e-mail accounts for 8 dollars, and adding a dollar to the end cost to compensate for the CAPTCHAs would totally destroy their business model?
Was that supposed to mean that each of the thousand CAPTCHAs adds a dollar in cost to spammers? Because then I could see how that would cause some problems for them.
If you have incriminating files, why are you storing them on the cloud at all? It seems doubtful that the fourth amendment would protect stuff stored via cloud computing. Maybe it was just an odd choice of words, or not "legally" incriminating, but if physically securing your files is an option, that would probably be better. I have a hard time putting my faith in data storage I can't see. My gut feeling is that for -most- circumstances, a USB drive on your person would be more secure than anything on the cloud.
Except that last one was general to all cameras, this one is specific to iphones.
Maybe the application for patenting it on all cameras maybe got turned down. It seems like trying to patent anything but the sun gets approved, but maybe some government official realized that if Apple has the exclusive rights to this valuable censorship technology, that could prevent it from being rolled out. Maybe Steve Jobs would say "Okay, you've made it mandatory that all cameras have this in them, so now I have a monopoly on the whole camera market. You'll now have to pay $1000 for a legally-approved 4 megapixel compact camera." So everyone would just buy unapproved cameras and their dastardly plans would be ruined. Thus, the government had the broader patent application denied.
I consider this to be the most likely explanation. You can spout off about slashdot editors being careless, but we both know this is clearly the fallout of a fight between two forces of evil.
Also, I'm not sure why Slashdotters hate bitcoin so much.
I think it may have something to do with the NEAR CONSTANT stream of slashvertising someone seems to be doing for the bitcoin economy.
It's kind of like how I didn't start off hating my coworker's kid, but hearing endless chatter about the kid's activities (which were mainly pooping) for a month, I vowed to wait 18 years, and then punch the not-a-baby-anymore in the gut. It's not that the kid or bitcoin did anything bad, it's that they've done nothing noteworthy and yet I keep hearing about them.
It also doesn't make sense unless you own your own home, and also intend to live there until you die. For the rest of us who either rent, or will probably move in 2-10 years, investing in PV panels is stupid.
Only if you don't mention it to the realator or inspector. Otherwise it will increase the resale value of your home, much as any other improvement would. Savings on the electrical bill can be quite easily factored into price and should factor into the "is it worth it" equation.
What company in their right mind would want to produce something that is going to be in constant and ever increasing demand?
If there's an option that costs less but maybe has higher externalized costs (like in terms of pollution)? I don't know. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "right mind." If you mean "What their mindset should be if they weren't made up of a bunch of greedy bastards" then the answer would be all power companies.
But "right mind" for companies seems to more often mean "PROFIT NOW NOW NOW!!!" So the answer is "None of them."
Same reason why we use tax dollars to fund basic biomedical research: if profitability is not a sure and immediate thing, or if it's not the shortest path to money, companies aren't going to do it.
I can assure you that my vote for the Tea Party is just as illegal to discriminate against as is my sexual preference.
I can assure you that there is far more discrimination against homosexuals than there is against tea partiers (despite tea partiers generally being more deserving of discrimination).
For really going after what is a problem in our country.
At least when they're focusing on youtube videos, they're not making anything -important- worse.
"To fix the housing crisis, we have passed the 'We love Homeowners' bill: it makes it easier for banks to foreclose on your house and stipulates that if you can't pay off your house, the bank can sell your organs to pay for it. It also will reduce our taxes by saving the courts money: banks now have legal immunity and are not required to prove you owe them money before they foreclose on your house. This bill also approves strip mining in Yosemite national park."
Whatever happened to fair use? I mean really come on now, how does this help protect anything?
Maybe the senators got tired of searching for the music video they were looking for, then getting some american idol reject singing into a webcam that they're sitting too close to. Because I've been annoyed by that before. I wouldn't want to -legislate- that away, and whenever record companies win, we lose, but we don't appear to be losing that much with this.
Hmm... along those same lines, the frat house across the street playing shitty music so loud that I can hear it at 2 am from across the street when I have to get up in the morning is definitely a public performance that the RIAA, ASCAP, and senate should crack down on...
That's exceptionally "Half is glass full" for slashdot. While I have no doubt some of their billion+ people will still be able to get past the censorship, I'd doubt that -most- net users in China will have unrestricted access to that information.
They are the same issue: republicans waging a war against education. In the case of collective bargaining, that wasn't a budgetary measure: the unions had already agreed to have their benefits cut. It was about weakening a political enemy.
Its simplistic to say "all public unions are bad." I see nothing to indicate the balance of power had shifted too far in favor of the workers. FDR's opposition to public unions was how long ago exactly? The situation has changed, and at the very least, he wasn't opposed to public unions because they were major supporters to the Democratic party, which was Walker's reason for busting them.
It's the only country I know still seriously trying to push abstinence and a single sex partner for life. The rest of the world has pretty much said as long as they don't get pregnant or catch STDs, oh well...
I've never been to a more puritanical country myself, but I hear that Mexico and several Latin American countries are far more socially conservative and toe the old Catholic line more than the US. You can't tell me that politicians in Iran or Saudi Arabia are less obsessed with stopping sex than ours are. Large parts of Africa are pretty conservative when it comes to that too. Australia is engaged in censoring the net, games, and I seem to recall they were at least talking about banning porn involving women with small breasts, too childlike or something.
I'd agree that Europe, Japan, and maybe Russia and/or China are less generally scared of sex than we are, but again, not entirely. In Japan for example, groins are pixelated in porn, and there are plenty of people who act like sex doesn't happen. Approval of birth control pills for Japanese women took forever, in part because of concerns it would lead to more promiscuity. Compare Portland or San Francisco to a small town in Russia, and I suspect you'd conclude the US is far less concerned with abstinence.
Anyway, the not wanting to see other family members as sexual creatures is pretty universal and goes both ways pretty much everywhere and isn't exactly related to fear of sex. It usually doesn't jive very well with our image of them, we usually think of family members as being clothed (infants excepted.)
Wait, you're saying the same party that went out of their way to teachers' rights, consistently goes after public education, and is opposed to net neutrality is now going out of their way to screw over universities for no legitimate reason?
I can't even be sarcastic, that's not surprising in the least. It also will not be surprising in the least when democrats fail to effectively stop this and fail to reverse it when they get back in power. Possibly with a little encouragement from AT&T.
I don't think there is anything wrong with DADT between family members about that. In fact, it seems a bit disturbing for it not to be the case. And "little" makes that sentence disturbing, just FYI.
Slashdot Mirror
by creating orphan members of the closed organization who out of will to survive create their own organizations using past knowledge to protect themselves and their organization where their previous organization failed. just because an organization is vulnerable to being shut down doesn't mean the individuals of the organization are also vulnerable to never being allowed to start up again.
I was being sarcastic... I guess that was subtle for the internets.
That said, I was just thinking along the lines of "Eliminate the inefficient organizations and that just means more business for the efficient ones, who will invest that added income better."
Psh! How could putting the inefficient cybercrime organizations out of business EVER backfire and select for better cybercrime organizations? That's just nonsense.
It suggests that CAPTCHAs can narrow the profit margin, but just a few lines above that it says they only cost a dollar to overcome. So these spammers will sell 1000 e-mail accounts for 8 dollars, and adding a dollar to the end cost to compensate for the CAPTCHAs would totally destroy their business model?
Was that supposed to mean that each of the thousand CAPTCHAs adds a dollar in cost to spammers? Because then I could see how that would cause some problems for them.
If you have incriminating files, why are you storing them on the cloud at all? It seems doubtful that the fourth amendment would protect stuff stored via cloud computing. Maybe it was just an odd choice of words, or not "legally" incriminating, but if physically securing your files is an option, that would probably be better. I have a hard time putting my faith in data storage I can't see. My gut feeling is that for -most- circumstances, a USB drive on your person would be more secure than anything on the cloud.
4. It can be used to impress the other sex and get you laid.
Which explains the interest in bitcoins rather than gold among libertarians here on slashdot...
Except that last one was general to all cameras, this one is specific to iphones.
Maybe the application for patenting it on all cameras maybe got turned down. It seems like trying to patent anything but the sun gets approved, but maybe some government official realized that if Apple has the exclusive rights to this valuable censorship technology, that could prevent it from being rolled out. Maybe Steve Jobs would say "Okay, you've made it mandatory that all cameras have this in them, so now I have a monopoly on the whole camera market. You'll now have to pay $1000 for a legally-approved 4 megapixel compact camera." So everyone would just buy unapproved cameras and their dastardly plans would be ruined. Thus, the government had the broader patent application denied.
I consider this to be the most likely explanation. You can spout off about slashdot editors being careless, but we both know this is clearly the fallout of a fight between two forces of evil.
Also, I'm not sure why Slashdotters hate bitcoin so much.
I think it may have something to do with the NEAR CONSTANT stream of slashvertising someone seems to be doing for the bitcoin economy.
It's kind of like how I didn't start off hating my coworker's kid, but hearing endless chatter about the kid's activities (which were mainly pooping) for a month, I vowed to wait 18 years, and then punch the not-a-baby-anymore in the gut. It's not that the kid or bitcoin did anything bad, it's that they've done nothing noteworthy and yet I keep hearing about them.
And nothing of value was lost.
Does your proposal come with a free unicorn?
pleasesayyespleasesayyespleasesayyes...
It also doesn't make sense unless you own your own home, and also intend to live there until you die. For the rest of us who either rent, or will probably move in 2-10 years, investing in PV panels is stupid.
Only if you don't mention it to the realator or inspector. Otherwise it will increase the resale value of your home, much as any other improvement would. Savings on the electrical bill can be quite easily factored into price and should factor into the "is it worth it" equation.
What company in their right mind would want to produce something that is going to be in constant and ever increasing demand?
If there's an option that costs less but maybe has higher externalized costs (like in terms of pollution)? I don't know. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "right mind." If you mean "What their mindset should be if they weren't made up of a bunch of greedy bastards" then the answer would be all power companies.
But "right mind" for companies seems to more often mean "PROFIT NOW NOW NOW!!!" So the answer is "None of them."
Same reason why we use tax dollars to fund basic biomedical research: if profitability is not a sure and immediate thing, or if it's not the shortest path to money, companies aren't going to do it.
I can assure you that my vote for the Tea Party is just as illegal to discriminate against as is my sexual preference.
I can assure you that there is far more discrimination against homosexuals than there is against tea partiers (despite tea partiers generally being more deserving of discrimination).
Why choose what is probably the most disgusting choice, excrement?
I'd say there are more disgusting choices. Unprocessed excrement for one. Plutonium. Live children. Your own body parts.
Although if it was a choice of eating my own brain and eating my own poop, I might choose the suicideburger over the shitburger.
For really going after what is a problem in our country.
At least when they're focusing on youtube videos, they're not making anything -important- worse.
"To fix the housing crisis, we have passed the 'We love Homeowners' bill: it makes it easier for banks to foreclose on your house and stipulates that if you can't pay off your house, the bank can sell your organs to pay for it. It also will reduce our taxes by saving the courts money: banks now have legal immunity and are not required to prove you owe them money before they foreclose on your house. This bill also approves strip mining in Yosemite national park."
Whatever happened to fair use? I mean really come on now, how does this help protect anything?
Maybe the senators got tired of searching for the music video they were looking for, then getting some american idol reject singing into a webcam that they're sitting too close to. Because I've been annoyed by that before. I wouldn't want to -legislate- that away, and whenever record companies win, we lose, but we don't appear to be losing that much with this.
Hmm... along those same lines, the frat house across the street playing shitty music so loud that I can hear it at 2 am from across the street when I have to get up in the morning is definitely a public performance that the RIAA, ASCAP, and senate should crack down on...
Wow, did I really just write "half is glass full?" Clearly I need to do the dishes less often...
That's exceptionally "Half is glass full" for slashdot. While I have no doubt some of their billion+ people will still be able to get past the censorship, I'd doubt that -most- net users in China will have unrestricted access to that information.
I live in the US: some freedoms, but not really braveheart "FREEDOM!!!" So could I then get away with just getting to second base with China?
They are the same issue: republicans waging a war against education. In the case of collective bargaining, that wasn't a budgetary measure: the unions had already agreed to have their benefits cut. It was about weakening a political enemy.
Its simplistic to say "all public unions are bad." I see nothing to indicate the balance of power had shifted too far in favor of the workers. FDR's opposition to public unions was how long ago exactly? The situation has changed, and at the very least, he wasn't opposed to public unions because they were major supporters to the Democratic party, which was Walker's reason for busting them.
Indeed, but they're starting to go slower for economic reasons, which dramatically reduces the pollution (source)
It's the only country I know still seriously trying to push abstinence and a single sex partner for life. The rest of the world has pretty much said as long as they don't get pregnant or catch STDs, oh well...
I've never been to a more puritanical country myself, but I hear that Mexico and several Latin American countries are far more socially conservative and toe the old Catholic line more than the US. You can't tell me that politicians in Iran or Saudi Arabia are less obsessed with stopping sex than ours are. Large parts of Africa are pretty conservative when it comes to that too. Australia is engaged in censoring the net, games, and I seem to recall they were at least talking about banning porn involving women with small breasts, too childlike or something.
I'd agree that Europe, Japan, and maybe Russia and/or China are less generally scared of sex than we are, but again, not entirely. In Japan for example, groins are pixelated in porn, and there are plenty of people who act like sex doesn't happen. Approval of birth control pills for Japanese women took forever, in part because of concerns it would lead to more promiscuity. Compare Portland or San Francisco to a small town in Russia, and I suspect you'd conclude the US is far less concerned with abstinence.
Anyway, the not wanting to see other family members as sexual creatures is pretty universal and goes both ways pretty much everywhere and isn't exactly related to fear of sex. It usually doesn't jive very well with our image of them, we usually think of family members as being clothed (infants excepted.)
Wait, you're saying the same party that went out of their way to teachers' rights, consistently goes after public education, and is opposed to net neutrality is now going out of their way to screw over universities for no legitimate reason?
I can't even be sarcastic, that's not surprising in the least. It also will not be surprising in the least when democrats fail to effectively stop this and fail to reverse it when they get back in power. Possibly with a little encouragement from AT&T.
I don't think there is anything wrong with DADT between family members about that. In fact, it seems a bit disturbing for it not to be the case. And "little" makes that sentence disturbing, just FYI.
Dug happens to be my name, you insensitive clod.
Could be worse.
Sincerely,
Reply To This
I don't want to be around when THAT bubble bursts.