You may or may not be aware but you are probably an island among your peers with sentiments like that. ALL of the photographers I know are borderline nuts about their copy writes, when and how their work is reproduced and making sure it's properly attributed. Going on vacation with one and trying to get pics afterward is a nightmare. My private pictures from camping weekend X don't need to have attribution stamps you self important..... well, you probably know.
If learning the FACTS of our physical bodies causes sex at ages under the current age of consent, then that current age is set WRONG. It is one thing to protect children from predation when they are too young and naive to do it themselves, it's quite another to protect them from perfectly natural acts appropriate to their social and physical age. The age of consent should be set based on the average age that teens become sexually active. It should be a statistically determined number. Not a political tool.
Are you implying that all tournaments in all forms be regulated by a (currently non-existent) body? Poker is one thing. Warhammer is quite another. Meanwhile, how do you regulate a masquerade contest? What about Halloween costume contests? How about the COD4 ladder I was in? Got rules for that? What if they differ from the ones we agreed to on entering our clan? How about the Corps in EVE online that take isk cuts from their players? Isk has a cash equivalence, which fluctuates like real currency. Should that be included and regulated? How about the in game site that lets you pay isk to see nude pictures? Or the one that lets you pay isk to play "slots" and you might get a fat isk pay out. Got regulations and enforcement for a game based in Iceland, hosted in London, and which the sub game gambling system is made and hosted by a random_player in random_country. Should this be "regulated"? by who?
This is one of the few times I think that the free market will do just fine. People will put their gambling dollars where they get the best experiance, and that should be up to them to choose. If it's an outright fraud, they'll get busted and sued. If it's only a slight fraud, then that's fine since it's supposed to be like that, and everyone knows it. Are we going to set state endorsed odds? Who's to say what "fair" odds are?
Given that Washington State has similar issues, and laws, and casinos... and given that this is largely about the medium (internet), I think it's relevant enough to warrant discussion. Besides, if we don't put it out there and let people discuss, learn and spread, how are we supposed to do anything about it before it becomes widespread and "accepted"?
I'm with you that modern ICBMs are a lot more accurate than most people would guess. However, I don't think it's a major focus of munitions development. The modern war doesn't really call for ICBMs. In fact, they have become a deterrent, with MAD keeping them grounded on all sides. It's unlikely any major ICBM launch would go unanswered, and the answer is going to come before detonation of whatever the first one was carrying.
Cruise missiles are not exactly easy to shoot down, granting that they are EASIER to shoot down than a MIRV or RV. There isn't any reason that cruise missiles have to fly low and perform pop-up attacks on targets. They do this now because most countries can't stop them (at least the ones we most often shoot at). Technologically, cruise missiles could be fired from anywhere, go upto sub-orbital insertion vectors and drop back on the target like an ICBM. It's not optimal to do so because: few countries can shoot down incoming missiles, and it takes more fuel and time. (besides the fact that it would probably require an engine change)
Technologically, there isn't that much difference in ICBM and a cruise missile. But their respective fields of use are entirely different. Cruise missiles are used as close support and strategic targeting. While ICBMs are a threat and deterrent only.
I suspect the only thing stopping the US military from TELLING YOU about the orbital kill vehicles it already has is that they are most effective when no one thinks they exist. Which keeps them from becoming only a threat and deterrent, instead allowing them to be a devastating weapon when one is desperately needed. (we hope it only gets used in desperate situations)
I'm just curious what makes you, and biker boy up there, think that you know more than any of the rest of us. You don't know how I drive, for all you know, I could be the best, or worst driver on earth.
Please, stop trying to perpetuate the idea that only motorcyclists and truck drivers are good drivers. In point of fact, those are two the of the MOST ACCIDENT prone sets of drivers on the road. Observe some reality.
Lastly, lets not pretend like you have even the slightest idea how observant any given other driver is. You guys can take your elitist bullshit and walk with it. I'll be driving. You can spot me, I'll be singing along to the radio, futzzing with the climate control, text my secretary about the meeting later and I'll STILL notice your bike out of lane position and riding like you are terrified of everyone else on the road.
Does driving require the entirety of your faculties? All the time? I really hope not. People are capable of doing any number of things at a time. The trick, is managing which ones require constant attention. Driving requires (for the most part) only a small portion of your full capability, but it requires the CONSTANT use of your eyes. Anything you can do without looking, shouldn't be much of a problem, so long as it doesn't require more faculty than you can spare.
Most of us can carry on a conversation and walk. Some of us can carry on a conversation, walk, and type a different conversation. This isn't elitism, this is just the way it is. The same concepts apply to driving. Some people can drive and talk. Some people can drive, talk and keep their kids in line. Some people can drive, talk, keep their kids in line and navigate an unfamiliar area with nothing but the memory of a conversation they had 2 days before as directions. While it's true we aren't all created equal, the law needs to be applied equally anyway. This study "proves" (dubiously) what we all knew anyway. Some people are better at this stuff than others. SHOCKING. However, this study should not be used as evidence that "I can do it because I'm safe". That's a logical fallacy. At any moment while driving, you may need every little bit of your capability. Even that might not be enough. Proper risk management still applies. Put the phone down and drive.
League of Legends is a superior game in most respects, and it's from the same people that made the original DOTA mod. It also has a better payment model with reasonable micro transactions. But no content is cut off from free players, they just have to play longer to get it.
Fundamentally, I have the right to do anything I am physically capable of. If you can't stop me, that is your problem.
Now, if you want to talk about morality, right, wrong, ethics and culture, then we can. However, fundamentally, you have only the rights you can take, just like everyone else. This is why the bigger rock/bow/gun/cannon/bomb has always won out.
Is it ethically wrong to take something from an artisan for no payment? Yes, in most cases. Tell me, what did a pirate take exactly? A minimal quality digital replica with NO material cost what so ever. While that doesn't make it "right" it sure as hell mitigates things.
This my friends, is what is known as BAD MATH. Mind, I don't disagree that sales tax is regressive. However, sales tax eats a percentage of your purchase. Poor people go shopping and buy staples and beans and rice and some chicken, and buy 2 weeks of groceries for 60$. Meanwhile, that woman in the lexis with the 2,000$ suit on? She spent 110$ on a bottle of wine, some designer cheese and some pasta imported directly from italy, all for a meal she will eat ONLY tonight.
You can assume that sales tax is more of a burden on the poor, if you also assume the poor and the rich have similar spending habits. But they don't. When I was living up in washington, I spent 100$ a week at the grocery store. Meanwhile, my poor ass friends were spending 100$ a month. Pretty sure I paid more taxes than any two of them combined, given my income, that wasn't unreasonable.
Also, by your definition, aren't all taxes regressive? No matter what percentage you take from me, if you take the same from anyone else, one of us is going to feel it more. Are you suggesting that it would be better if poor people didn't have to pay as much percent in taxes? Say if you make less than 25k a year you pay 1/2 taxes? Does that mean you support making the top 10% pay double? Because it's the same thing.
It's remarkably cheaper to do the latter. Suppose you didn't have to pay for hiring, managers, facilities, supplies, training, or anything else that goes with having employees on site. Now suppose you use all that extra money to put up a computer that's better than the humans were. Now, pay all the humans 2 years wages and walk away having A) improved services, B) cut spending, C)profit! It would of course be the first time in recorded history that a government had ever done more than C.
I wonder about that cost number. I mean, the technology at work here is rather primitive. In simple terms, it measures an electrical signal for change, and deploys a (probably spring loaded) brake to freeze the blade. Now, mechanically, I can think of a couple of ways to accomplish this. The electrical signal processing is childs play. Literally, you can do it with a radio shack science fair kit, or any volt/ohm meter. So the question is, where the hell is the cost coming from?
Secondarily, why hasn't someone created their own version? Are his patents that good?
Is that what you think is going to happen? LOL. What we will see, is every saw labeled with a giant red sign that says "DOES NOT INCLUDE BLADE BRAKES, do not touch spinning blade"./end lawsuits.
This isn't about LAW at all. They took 12 people too stupid, or boring to get out of jury duty, and put two saws in front of them. On one saw, they try and cut a hotdog and it fails to damage the hotdog significantly. On the other, they cut a pigs head in half. Blood and brains going everywhere. Done.
I am not saying this is actually what happened, but I'll bet it's not too far off.
You buy your college text books from amazon? I was under the impression that was one of the few markets they don't own yet.
In any case, I think the point here is that the publishers should be playing ball of their own accord, not because big bad amazon told them to. And, I'm pretty sure I just read a story the other day about backlash from publishers against Amazon for trying to throw their weight around. Who do they think they are? Apple?
Errr... well, crap. As you pointed out, hydrogen is kinda nasty stuff. Still, being lighter than air, it rather quickly dissipates, which is really the main safety feature at work in this scenario.
Before you start throwing around the fud, maybe you should check a few pesky facts. Lets start with current cars. Pretty much 4 wheels a cabin, an engine and big ass tank of flammable liquid with a low ignition point and a high explosive rating due to vapors. It's fuel air mixture is also fairly wide. To compare, we have hydrogen gas... Which has a narrow fuel air mix, a high ignition point, and which is lighter than air. So now we imagine a freeway with a wall on either side. The wall is an aquarium with crystals and a piping system to extract the hydrogen into the grid. Now, your car, which is a finely tuned BOMB ruptures the wall, breaking the aquarium and the gas lines. What happens? The water pours out, probably retarding any fire your car started, and the hydrogen goes straight up and dissipates harmlessly. Most likely, you never had a fuel air mix capable of igniting the hydrogen.
Liquid fuel used in automobiles is about as volatile as anything gets (at least in public spaces). Ng, Hydrogen and other compressed gasses are considerably safer. They dissipate quickly, require fairly small windows for ignition, and most of them require significantly more spark to fire up in the first place.
Actually, you don't. Inviting an officer or agent into your home doesn't not void your search and seizure rights. All it does is allow them to observe the area of the house you allowed them into. It's "plain site" only at that point. Until they have a warrant, they aren't allowed to snoop in closed off areas. However, once you've allowed them in, they are likely to ask or push for more access. You have your rights still, but you must exercise them.
They may lie, but they aren't supposed to forge documents. They also aren't granted carte blanche to break TOS and therefore "hack" into any website they like. Does Facebook grant a TOS exception for law enforcement? It is still against the law to gain access to a computer through fraud isn't it? Yeah... how about that, it turns out written law isn't the only law. I'm shocked, how about you?
There are more than a few internal checks you'd have to figure out. I know, you didn't know. It seems to me like no one does anymore. Release groups have been around a lot longer than the piracy bullshit going on now. They are more sophisticated than anyone seems to imagine. That isn't ascii art, it's an encoded hash. That signature is a carefully constructed binary puzzle. The rhythm and beat in that midi? Also an encoded message. You can rename your file anything you want. It's unlikely you can replicate even half of the internal checks, even if you are aware of them.
Kids these days.
These guys play with crypto for FUN. And it didn't occur to you that they might be including some in releases? Really? Are you conscious?
Compared with the vast majority of slashdotters (for instance) that saw this as a scam from the very get go. I think my point here would be that you are "bad at math and logical reasoning" if you can't spot a pyramid scam the second someone shows it to you. Even real MLMs are only just barely not scams, and it doesn't take a genius to work out just how stupid this entire scheme was.
I'm not implying that I expect the majority of people to be "good" at math and logic, I just expect them to not be retarded either. Clearly I'm going to have to work on my expectations, as they are off a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
You may or may not be aware but you are probably an island among your peers with sentiments like that. ALL of the photographers I know are borderline nuts about their copy writes, when and how their work is reproduced and making sure it's properly attributed. Going on vacation with one and trying to get pics afterward is a nightmare. My private pictures from camping weekend X don't need to have attribution stamps you self important..... well, you probably know.
If learning the FACTS of our physical bodies causes sex at ages under the current age of consent, then that current age is set WRONG. It is one thing to protect children from predation when they are too young and naive to do it themselves, it's quite another to protect them from perfectly natural acts appropriate to their social and physical age. The age of consent should be set based on the average age that teens become sexually active. It should be a statistically determined number. Not a political tool.
It's times like this that we wonder why we are cursed by your vivid imagination.
I'm going to go bleach my eyes now, and hope I can get it far enough into my brain to stop the images.
Are you implying that all tournaments in all forms be regulated by a (currently non-existent) body? Poker is one thing. Warhammer is quite another. Meanwhile, how do you regulate a masquerade contest? What about Halloween costume contests? How about the COD4 ladder I was in? Got rules for that? What if they differ from the ones we agreed to on entering our clan? How about the Corps in EVE online that take isk cuts from their players? Isk has a cash equivalence, which fluctuates like real currency. Should that be included and regulated? How about the in game site that lets you pay isk to see nude pictures? Or the one that lets you pay isk to play "slots" and you might get a fat isk pay out. Got regulations and enforcement for a game based in Iceland, hosted in London, and which the sub game gambling system is made and hosted by a random_player in random_country. Should this be "regulated"? by who?
This is one of the few times I think that the free market will do just fine. People will put their gambling dollars where they get the best experiance, and that should be up to them to choose. If it's an outright fraud, they'll get busted and sued. If it's only a slight fraud, then that's fine since it's supposed to be like that, and everyone knows it. Are we going to set state endorsed odds? Who's to say what "fair" odds are?
Given that Washington State has similar issues, and laws, and casinos... and given that this is largely about the medium (internet), I think it's relevant enough to warrant discussion. Besides, if we don't put it out there and let people discuss, learn and spread, how are we supposed to do anything about it before it becomes widespread and "accepted"?
I'm with you that modern ICBMs are a lot more accurate than most people would guess. However, I don't think it's a major focus of munitions development. The modern war doesn't really call for ICBMs. In fact, they have become a deterrent, with MAD keeping them grounded on all sides. It's unlikely any major ICBM launch would go unanswered, and the answer is going to come before detonation of whatever the first one was carrying.
Cruise missiles are not exactly easy to shoot down, granting that they are EASIER to shoot down than a MIRV or RV. There isn't any reason that cruise missiles have to fly low and perform pop-up attacks on targets. They do this now because most countries can't stop them (at least the ones we most often shoot at). Technologically, cruise missiles could be fired from anywhere, go upto sub-orbital insertion vectors and drop back on the target like an ICBM. It's not optimal to do so because: few countries can shoot down incoming missiles, and it takes more fuel and time. (besides the fact that it would probably require an engine change)
Technologically, there isn't that much difference in ICBM and a cruise missile. But their respective fields of use are entirely different. Cruise missiles are used as close support and strategic targeting. While ICBMs are a threat and deterrent only.
I suspect the only thing stopping the US military from TELLING YOU about the orbital kill vehicles it already has is that they are most effective when no one thinks they exist. Which keeps them from becoming only a threat and deterrent, instead allowing them to be a devastating weapon when one is desperately needed. (we hope it only gets used in desperate situations)
This is the way of it now. It's been going this direction for years now. deal with it.
I'm just curious what makes you, and biker boy up there, think that you know more than any of the rest of us. You don't know how I drive, for all you know, I could be the best, or worst driver on earth.
Please, stop trying to perpetuate the idea that only motorcyclists and truck drivers are good drivers. In point of fact, those are two the of the MOST ACCIDENT prone sets of drivers on the road. Observe some reality.
Lastly, lets not pretend like you have even the slightest idea how observant any given other driver is. You guys can take your elitist bullshit and walk with it. I'll be driving. You can spot me, I'll be singing along to the radio, futzzing with the climate control, text my secretary about the meeting later and I'll STILL notice your bike out of lane position and riding like you are terrified of everyone else on the road.
Does driving require the entirety of your faculties? All the time? I really hope not. People are capable of doing any number of things at a time. The trick, is managing which ones require constant attention. Driving requires (for the most part) only a small portion of your full capability, but it requires the CONSTANT use of your eyes. Anything you can do without looking, shouldn't be much of a problem, so long as it doesn't require more faculty than you can spare.
Most of us can carry on a conversation and walk. Some of us can carry on a conversation, walk, and type a different conversation. This isn't elitism, this is just the way it is. The same concepts apply to driving. Some people can drive and talk. Some people can drive, talk and keep their kids in line. Some people can drive, talk, keep their kids in line and navigate an unfamiliar area with nothing but the memory of a conversation they had 2 days before as directions. While it's true we aren't all created equal, the law needs to be applied equally anyway. This study "proves" (dubiously) what we all knew anyway. Some people are better at this stuff than others. SHOCKING. However, this study should not be used as evidence that "I can do it because I'm safe". That's a logical fallacy. At any moment while driving, you may need every little bit of your capability. Even that might not be enough. Proper risk management still applies. Put the phone down and drive.
League of Legends is a superior game in most respects, and it's from the same people that made the original DOTA mod. It also has a better payment model with reasonable micro transactions. But no content is cut off from free players, they just have to play longer to get it.
Fundamentally, I have the right to do anything I am physically capable of. If you can't stop me, that is your problem.
Now, if you want to talk about morality, right, wrong, ethics and culture, then we can. However, fundamentally, you have only the rights you can take, just like everyone else. This is why the bigger rock/bow/gun/cannon/bomb has always won out.
Is it ethically wrong to take something from an artisan for no payment? Yes, in most cases. Tell me, what did a pirate take exactly? A minimal quality digital replica with NO material cost what so ever. While that doesn't make it "right" it sure as hell mitigates things.
This my friends, is what is known as BAD MATH. Mind, I don't disagree that sales tax is regressive. However, sales tax eats a percentage of your purchase. Poor people go shopping and buy staples and beans and rice and some chicken, and buy 2 weeks of groceries for 60$. Meanwhile, that woman in the lexis with the 2,000$ suit on? She spent 110$ on a bottle of wine, some designer cheese and some pasta imported directly from italy, all for a meal she will eat ONLY tonight.
You can assume that sales tax is more of a burden on the poor, if you also assume the poor and the rich have similar spending habits. But they don't. When I was living up in washington, I spent 100$ a week at the grocery store. Meanwhile, my poor ass friends were spending 100$ a month. Pretty sure I paid more taxes than any two of them combined, given my income, that wasn't unreasonable.
Also, by your definition, aren't all taxes regressive? No matter what percentage you take from me, if you take the same from anyone else, one of us is going to feel it more. Are you suggesting that it would be better if poor people didn't have to pay as much percent in taxes? Say if you make less than 25k a year you pay 1/2 taxes? Does that mean you support making the top 10% pay double? Because it's the same thing.
It's remarkably cheaper to do the latter. Suppose you didn't have to pay for hiring, managers, facilities, supplies, training, or anything else that goes with having employees on site. Now suppose you use all that extra money to put up a computer that's better than the humans were. Now, pay all the humans 2 years wages and walk away having A) improved services, B) cut spending, C)profit! It would of course be the first time in recorded history that a government had ever done more than C.
This? This you call surreal! The banks crash and burn no biggie, but youtube involved in copyright infringement is surreal.
/. ?
Maybe someone can help me, am I out of whack or is it
I wonder about that cost number. I mean, the technology at work here is rather primitive. In simple terms, it measures an electrical signal for change, and deploys a (probably spring loaded) brake to freeze the blade. Now, mechanically, I can think of a couple of ways to accomplish this. The electrical signal processing is childs play. Literally, you can do it with a radio shack science fair kit, or any volt/ohm meter. So the question is, where the hell is the cost coming from?
Secondarily, why hasn't someone created their own version? Are his patents that good?
Is that what you think is going to happen? LOL. What we will see, is every saw labeled with a giant red sign that says "DOES NOT INCLUDE BLADE BRAKES, do not touch spinning blade". /end lawsuits.
This isn't about LAW at all. They took 12 people too stupid, or boring to get out of jury duty, and put two saws in front of them. On one saw, they try and cut a hotdog and it fails to damage the hotdog significantly. On the other, they cut a pigs head in half. Blood and brains going everywhere. Done.
I am not saying this is actually what happened, but I'll bet it's not too far off.
You buy your college text books from amazon? I was under the impression that was one of the few markets they don't own yet.
In any case, I think the point here is that the publishers should be playing ball of their own accord, not because big bad amazon told them to. And, I'm pretty sure I just read a story the other day about backlash from publishers against Amazon for trying to throw their weight around. Who do they think they are? Apple?
Smell the karma burn.
Errr... well, crap. As you pointed out, hydrogen is kinda nasty stuff. Still, being lighter than air, it rather quickly dissipates, which is really the main safety feature at work in this scenario.
Before you start throwing around the fud, maybe you should check a few pesky facts. Lets start with current cars. Pretty much 4 wheels a cabin, an engine and big ass tank of flammable liquid with a low ignition point and a high explosive rating due to vapors. It's fuel air mixture is also fairly wide. To compare, we have hydrogen gas... Which has a narrow fuel air mix, a high ignition point, and which is lighter than air. So now we imagine a freeway with a wall on either side. The wall is an aquarium with crystals and a piping system to extract the hydrogen into the grid. Now, your car, which is a finely tuned BOMB ruptures the wall, breaking the aquarium and the gas lines. What happens? The water pours out, probably retarding any fire your car started, and the hydrogen goes straight up and dissipates harmlessly. Most likely, you never had a fuel air mix capable of igniting the hydrogen.
Liquid fuel used in automobiles is about as volatile as anything gets (at least in public spaces). Ng, Hydrogen and other compressed gasses are considerably safer. They dissipate quickly, require fairly small windows for ignition, and most of them require significantly more spark to fire up in the first place.
Actually, you don't. Inviting an officer or agent into your home doesn't not void your search and seizure rights. All it does is allow them to observe the area of the house you allowed them into. It's "plain site" only at that point. Until they have a warrant, they aren't allowed to snoop in closed off areas. However, once you've allowed them in, they are likely to ask or push for more access. You have your rights still, but you must exercise them.
They may lie, but they aren't supposed to forge documents. They also aren't granted carte blanche to break TOS and therefore "hack" into any website they like. Does Facebook grant a TOS exception for law enforcement? It is still against the law to gain access to a computer through fraud isn't it? Yeah... how about that, it turns out written law isn't the only law. I'm shocked, how about you?
There are more than a few internal checks you'd have to figure out. I know, you didn't know. It seems to me like no one does anymore. Release groups have been around a lot longer than the piracy bullshit going on now. They are more sophisticated than anyone seems to imagine. That isn't ascii art, it's an encoded hash. That signature is a carefully constructed binary puzzle. The rhythm and beat in that midi? Also an encoded message. You can rename your file anything you want. It's unlikely you can replicate even half of the internal checks, even if you are aware of them.
Kids these days.
These guys play with crypto for FUN. And it didn't occur to you that they might be including some in releases? Really? Are you conscious?
Compared with the vast majority of slashdotters (for instance) that saw this as a scam from the very get go. I think my point here would be that you are "bad at math and logical reasoning" if you can't spot a pyramid scam the second someone shows it to you. Even real MLMs are only just barely not scams, and it doesn't take a genius to work out just how stupid this entire scheme was.
I'm not implying that I expect the majority of people to be "good" at math and logic, I just expect them to not be retarded either. Clearly I'm going to have to work on my expectations, as they are off a bit.
Homeworld, TotalA, Carmegedon 2, Counter Strike... etc