Another bunch of accidental cable disruptions clustered in space and time? Am I paranoid to wonder if something's going on here? Or is it like how earthquakes get more press when they come in bunches?
DRM will be required by content providers. HTML5 video will never gain any market share without it. Otherwise we will continue to have Flash and Silverlight.
I still prefer Italian coffee, it's stronger, allows a better experience on/. in the morning; you should try it.
Greek coffee works almost as fine (but not quite)... and it's harder to get it in the morning in Melbourne.
Double -WHOOOSH.
I can't determine why are you so determined to play Dr Sheldon Cooper/Amy Fowler (the sex is indeterminate for the moment, I promise to spend little energy to determine it; it may take a long time) and be such a killjoy. Or are you just playing stupid? Based on your answer, I'll determine my position (even if my momentum will be quite unpredictable).
After sixty years in enclosement I'm pretty shur the cat will be dead.
Being an "expérience de pensée", I can assure you the cat is still in the same state as in the beginning and will stay so as long as there will be someone to think of it.
Also saying that sub at sub atomic sizes things become indeterminable is very quite bold.
WHOOSH!
Also, tell this to any subatomic particle next time you meet one face to face. Meantime, please abstain from opening the Schrodinger's cat box.
Another example of how the US government is trying to shield people from the consequences of their actions.
Not only that, but...;) I wonder just where the world is heading? How can a honest cybercriminal earn nowadays her/his living without fear of being extradited in US?;)
I am glad they went through the proper process of verifying all the hardware and have gotten to the bottom of this little fiasco - but wow, they have to be biting their lips in frustration.
Why is this a fiasco? After all they discovered a pretty cheap way for FTL - just use defective cables!
This model hasn't worked for government, why should it work for Science?
Because, unlike government (chaotic by nature), science is deterministic?
I am glad they went through the proper process of verifying all the hardware and have gotten to the bottom of this little fiasco - but wow, they have to be biting their lips in frustration.
Why is this a fiasco? After all they discovered a pretty cheap way for FTL - just use defective cables!
;) Doing my bit to help: here are some posters to go with it
What's funny about that last link is the mention of war taxes when all the liberals I know were complaining about the wars not being paid for, so really make up your minds.
Please send this message to all the liberals you know and are complaining.
Otherwise, I'd be tempted to think you insinuate I'd be a liberal or I'd complain (or even that I'd pay taxes to IRS).
They're just trying to get our guard down, as any sinister anti-American organization would. Just watch: the minute the WSJ stops running editorials like this, the UN will take over!;-)
* Hackers are the reason I have to get up for work.
* Hackers are the reason that the newest tweetdeck sucks.
* Hackers stole my bike!
* Hackers are the reason i lose my car keys all the time.
* Hackers are the cause of Global Warming.
* Hackers are the reason I need to pee while standing in line.
* Hackers Are The Reson No One Gets The Truffles.
* Hackers are the reason why NSA director General Keith Alexander is so ugly.
* Hackers is the reason Brady Quinn is a bad guy for speaking out against the patron saint of football.
* Hackers are the reason why my girlfriend is pregnant.
* Hackers are the reason why John McCain leaves his first alert medical bracelet on his nightstand
* Hackers are the reason I can't ever fold those stupid bedsheets with the elastic corners.
Learn how to use a computer. Learn how to build your own network.
Sorry, I can't afford that many pigeons to implement RFC1149. And using smoke means more greenhouse gases.
Because when TPTB take the Internet and emasculate it, turning it into Encarta 2.0, you'll wonder why you spent stupid money on that thing that just became a very expensive doorstop.
the way we did it before service providers took over the tedious task of assigning IPs and charging obscene amounts of money for the privilege: point to point, over telephone lines.
Mate, I'm old enough to know how to setup and use a BBS (just haven't had enough time to join/. earlier).
Actually old enough to remember that they used to charge obscene amount of money for the privilege of using telephone lines - otherwise why you reckon the first crackers needed to invent and master the phreaking art? You reckon they would be so magnanimous to refrain in doing it again after they emasculate the internet?
In the absence of peering agreements between the major service providers, how are the darknets going to communicate? Using dark energy or what? Are the "internet dark users" going to take over and run the fiber/satellite infrastructure?
So the question becomes not if anyone is trying to take over the internet, but who stands to gain by spreading the rumour that such a takeover is on the cards. ITU reps, speaking off the record, are starting to fear some sort of conspiracy themselves: they've adamantly stated that they have neither the desire, nor the budget, nor the mandate, to interfere with governance of the internet, and yet the scare stories just refuse to die.
Now where did I say that? I didn't. I just don't believe in natural rights. You can, of course, but I'm merely trying to imply that there is, as far as I know, no actual evidence for their existence.
If speaking of the context of a concept definition, the correct form of expression would be "I don't accept your definition" (on which I'd ask: what do you find unacceptable: the genus or the differentia?).
Of course, in a discussion context of "embodiment of the concept in reality", one can ask for a proof/evidence of how the concept is observable in the current human behavior. Or, even one may wonder if one needs to ponder on philosophical concepts at all - I believe it still worth it.
Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.
"Information sharing is a natural right"
That was a statement of a fact, not a statement of a mere belief or opinion. That led me to believe that you might have some actual evidence to back that up.
That was a statement of a definition... I think this very confusion is the root of us "speaking together and understanding separately".
Indeed, they are not. So...?
"It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you"."
You spoke of being "able" to do something as if having the ability to do something was relevant. But maybe I misinterpreted you.
Well, I was discussing in the context of "natural right - the definition". "Able" was a poor choice of words indeed.
Side-track: do you believe one has the right to dig 1 foot hole on the Mars surface? (should daVinci have waited for someone to grant him the right to fly before designing his air screw or glider. Obviously, he wasn't been able to fly).
Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts
Well, okay. I just don't see any reason that anyone, or more specifically, I, should believe in such philosophical concepts when there's no evidence that they're true. Especially in cases like this where they seem indistinguishable from something that we already know exists (rights granted by law) and their supposed existence doesn't seem to affect anything.
Not willing to think of things that don't exists? Not believing some of these things things worth the effort of being transposed into reality?
PS My admiration for still staying in touch on the topic in spite of the rude artistic licenses I used.
a. a "human right" must be universal and unalienable
Never heard of such a thing.
Therefore it does not exists, right? How stupid of them to declare otherwise (please note: it is the declaration of human rights, not the grant/bill/law).
b. you can discriminate between a natural right and legal right by applying the criterion: if you deny the right to all the humanity, will the human race continue to exist?
Please elaborate on how a law's inconvenience proves that natural rights exist.
Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.
It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you". If the government would not exist or would not allow you to, you will surely die, because you couldn't ask for food.
Except that I don't think that rights are merely the ability to do something.
Indeed, they are not. So...?
Now, no matter what magical entity you think is working behind the scenes, I simply don't see evidence that has proven otherwise.
Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts... Would you like some fries with that?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what they sacrifice for this? I'm guessing they are highly prone to cancer or something.
Cancer most likely: Hayflick limit.
Yep. Other than the fact that a bunch of campers who were camping at the camp were killed, the disaster had no connection to the camp
So is it indeed harmless? I've seen a documentary that tells otherwise.
(duck)
Another bunch of accidental cable disruptions clustered in space and time? Am I paranoid to wonder if something's going on here? Or is it like how earthquakes get more press when they come in bunches?
A good time to take back the Internets?
</sarcasm>
DRM will be required by content providers. HTML5 video will never gain any market share without it. Otherwise we will continue to have Flash and Silverlight.
And... how's that a negative?
How is this being modded informative?
( ;) )
Because I provided a way to signal a tongue-in-cheek type of post without the smiley-between-brackets looking wrong?
Showoff..
As for all the rest; I will leave it at that. Wouldn't want to be a "killjoy"...
:) efharisto
I still prefer Italian coffee, it's stronger, allows a better experience on /. in the morning; you should try it.
Greek coffee works almost as fine (but not quite)... and it's harder to get it in the morning in Melbourne.
I can't determine why are you so determined to play Dr Sheldon Cooper/Amy Fowler (the sex is indeterminate for the moment, I promise to spend little energy to determine it; it may take a long time) and be such a killjoy. Or are you just playing stupid? Based on your answer, I'll determine my position (even if my momentum will be quite unpredictable).
After sixty years in enclosement I'm pretty shur the cat will be dead.
Being an "expérience de pensée", I can assure you the cat is still in the same state as in the beginning and will stay so as long as there will be someone to think of it.
Also saying that sub at sub atomic sizes things become indeterminable is very quite bold.
Yes, quite! Heisenberg was very bold in his time.
nature is deterministic, not science.
WHOOSH!
Also, tell this to any subatomic particle next time you meet one face to face. Meantime, please abstain from opening the Schrodinger's cat box.
Suffice to say that science still insists on verification, which government abhors.
FTFY. Not to worry though, it won't take long; after all precedents exist and, if the electorate require it, I'm sure the politicians will oblige ( ;) )
Another example of how the US government is trying to shield people from the consequences of their actions.
Not only that, but... ;) I wonder just where the world is heading? How can a honest cybercriminal earn nowadays her/his living without fear of being extradited in US? ;)
Install the correct version of Windows 7 and send them the bill.
And pay for Win7 Ent licenses from where? Own pocket?
I am glad they went through the proper process of verifying all the hardware and have gotten to the bottom of this little fiasco - but wow, they have to be biting their lips in frustration.
Why is this a fiasco? After all they discovered a pretty cheap way for FTL - just use defective cables!
This model hasn't worked for government, why should it work for Science?
Because, unlike government (chaotic by nature), science is deterministic?
They're so fast they're already out!
Mod parent +Informative, please!
I am glad they went through the proper process of verifying all the hardware and have gotten to the bottom of this little fiasco - but wow, they have to be biting their lips in frustration.
Why is this a fiasco? After all they discovered a pretty cheap way for FTL - just use defective cables!
Please send this message to all the liberals you know and are complaining.
Otherwise, I'd be tempted to think you insinuate I'd be a liberal or I'd complain (or even that I'd pay taxes to IRS).
The UN does NOT represent YOU
I feel so much better with the US govt representing me!
They're just trying to get our guard down, as any sinister anti-American organization would. Just watch: the minute the WSJ stops running editorials like this, the UN will take over! ;-)
Ah, yes, you so right: WSJ - Alert on Hacker Power Play. Among other things hackers will do:
* Hackers are the reason I have to get up for work.
* Hackers are the reason that the newest tweetdeck sucks.
* Hackers stole my bike!
* Hackers are the reason i lose my car keys all the time.
* Hackers are the cause of Global Warming.
* Hackers are the reason I need to pee while standing in line.
* Hackers Are The Reson No One Gets The Truffles.
* Hackers are the reason why NSA director General Keith Alexander is so ugly.
* Hackers is the reason Brady Quinn is a bad guy for speaking out against the patron saint of football.
* Hackers are the reason why my girlfriend is pregnant.
* Hackers are the reason why John McCain leaves his first alert medical bracelet on his nightstand
* Hackers are the reason I can't ever fold those stupid bedsheets with the elastic corners.
Just watch: the minute the WSJ stops running editorials like this, the UN will take over! ;-)
;) Doing my bit to help: here are some posters to go with it
Learn how to use a computer. Learn how to build your own network.
Sorry, I can't afford that many pigeons to implement RFC1149. And using smoke means more greenhouse gases.
Because when TPTB take the Internet and emasculate it, turning it into Encarta 2.0, you'll wonder why you spent stupid money on that thing that just became a very expensive doorstop.
the way we did it before service providers took over the tedious task of assigning IPs and charging obscene amounts of money for the privilege: point to point, over telephone lines.
Mate, I'm old enough to know how to setup and use a BBS (just haven't had enough time to join /. earlier).
Actually old enough to remember that they used to charge obscene amount of money for the privilege of using telephone lines - otherwise why you reckon the first crackers needed to invent and master the phreaking art?
You reckon they would be so magnanimous to refrain in doing it again after they emasculate the internet?
Darknets 2.0 plz hurry.
In the absence of peering agreements between the major service providers, how are the darknets going to communicate? Using dark energy or what? Are the "internet dark users" going to take over and run the fiber/satellite infrastructure?
So the question becomes not if anyone is trying to take over the internet, but who stands to gain by spreading the rumour that such a takeover is on the cards. ITU reps, speaking off the record, are starting to fear some sort of conspiracy themselves: they've adamantly stated that they have neither the desire, nor the budget, nor the mandate, to interfere with governance of the internet, and yet the scare stories just refuse to die.
Not willing to think of things that don't exists? Not believing some of these things things worth the effort of being transposed into reality?
Both?
Really? No even dreams about how your life should be in the future?
Therefore it does not exists, right?
Now where did I say that? I didn't. I just don't believe in natural rights. You can, of course, but I'm merely trying to imply that there is, as far as I know, no actual evidence for their existence.
If speaking of the context of a concept definition, the correct form of expression would be "I don't accept your definition" (on which I'd ask: what do you find unacceptable: the genus or the differentia?).
Of course, in a discussion context of "embodiment of the concept in reality", one can ask for a proof/evidence of how the concept is observable in the current human behavior. Or, even one may wonder if one needs to ponder on philosophical concepts at all - I believe it still worth it.
Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.
"Information sharing is a natural right"
That was a statement of a fact, not a statement of a mere belief or opinion. That led me to believe that you might have some actual evidence to back that up.
That was a statement of a definition... I think this very confusion is the root of us "speaking together and understanding separately".
Indeed, they are not. So...?
"It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you"."
You spoke of being "able" to do something as if having the ability to do something was relevant. But maybe I misinterpreted you.
Well, I was discussing in the context of "natural right - the definition". "Able" was a poor choice of words indeed.
Side-track: do you believe one has the right to dig 1 foot hole on the Mars surface? (should daVinci have waited for someone to grant him the right to fly before designing his air screw or glider. Obviously, he wasn't been able to fly).
Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts
Well, okay. I just don't see any reason that anyone, or more specifically, I, should believe in such philosophical concepts when there's no evidence that they're true. Especially in cases like this where they seem indistinguishable from something that we already know exists (rights granted by law) and their supposed existence doesn't seem to affect anything.
Not willing to think of things that don't exists? Not believing some of these things things worth the effort of being transposed into reality?
PS My admiration for still staying in touch on the topic in spite of the rude artistic licenses I used.
a. a "human right" must be universal and unalienable
Never heard of such a thing.
Therefore it does not exists, right? How stupid of them to declare otherwise (please note: it is the declaration of human rights, not the grant/bill/law).
b. you can discriminate between a natural right and legal right by applying the criterion: if you deny the right to all the humanity, will the human race continue to exist?
Please elaborate on how a law's inconvenience proves that natural rights exist.
Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.
It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you". If the government would not exist or would not allow you to, you will surely die, because you couldn't ask for food.
Except that I don't think that rights are merely the ability to do something.
Indeed, they are not. So...?
Now, no matter what magical entity you think is working behind the scenes, I simply don't see evidence that has proven otherwise.
Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts... Would you like some fries with that?