I wonder if people here will now realise why a lot of us in the UK value the fact that there is a second, non-elected House that can act as a brake on the excesses of the elected one?
What eBooks don't devalue is content, or at least they shouldn't.
Oh but they do, for a lot of people - read any story on any electronically-distributable content, and you will see lots of highly-rated comments saying that as the cost of distribution and duplication is essentially zero, the cost of the product should also be essentially zero. Authors and musicians should apparently support themselves with sponsorship, touring, merchandising, and/or a day job.
Attack the law for what it says, and how it could be abused, not for things you imagine it says. Otherwise you're on the defensive from the outset, as your opposition loudly points out that the law says no such thing *and it doesn't*.
Stop playing into their hands by discrediting yourself and making it easy to write you off as clearly misunderstanding what you're complaining about.
No, but you're potentially advocating committing a crime under the Computer Misuse Act by encouraging people to launch a DDoS attack against the site...
Well it definitely doesn't say "the government" now, but thinking more about it I think you're probably right; I first applied for SC back in around 2001/2002 or so, and I do remember something about a question being odd.
Could everyone stop it with the "ooh, X is useful to Terrorists, let's ban that!!1!" comments?
I'm as uncomfortable about some of the ramifications of this law as anyone else here, but the key phrase you're all ignoring is intended to be.
Wikipedia, the Tube, etc - all useful to terrorists, not intended to be useful to terrorists, not illegal.
A site enabling people to donate money, time, etc to terrorist causes - useful to terrorists, intended to be useful to terrorists, illegal.
Now please, by all means rail against the possible civil liberties violations, potential for misuse and abuse, etc, but let's not rewrite the law so it says something other than what it does. Doing so, and complaining about things that are not covered by it only harms otherwise legitimate complaints and concerns and makes those working against it look foolish and thus easier to dismiss.
So how would you combat the potential problem of groups (or individuals) with large sums of money seeking to influence an election in the immediate run-up to it?
Or would you not, and let anyone do, say or print whatever they want, and if it sways the result then so be it?
(Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested - although at the moment, I'm leaning in favour of preventing e.g. Murdoch using the Sun to try to swing the result in the way he wanted it to go)
When I applied for security clearance, one of the questions that I had to answer was 'have you ever tried to overthrow the government by violent, political, or other means?'
I'm not sure if you're misremembering it, or they've changed it, but I filled in the forms the other week (despite already holding a current clearance - silly customer doesn't trust the usual clearance scheme and runs their own in parallel that uses the same form...) and that question pertains to "the democratic process", not the government.
Come to think of it though, I do remember some merriment along those lines the first time I applied (8 or so years ago), so perhaps they have changed it...
I wonder how many things are removed from the Internet that we simply don't get to hear about...
Sure, there are high-profile cases in which it backfires and causes the offending material to be spread far and wide, but I'd be willing to bet that that happens in a tiny minority of the cases, and that in the rest, almost no-one not directly involved ever even knows.
a lot of people are making real choices about their browser types
Or their friend or relative has told them to use Firefox as it's "safer/better than IE" and they've gone with the flow.
another way of looking at this data is that around 40% of people are still using some form of IE. So all of those people have what is essentially their default browser
Or they have used other browsers and prefer IE.
I'm not defending IE (I hate it actually), but those figures don't support any conclusions other than that X% of people surveyed use a particular browser; it says nothing about *why* they use that browser.
All the users knew beforehand that the free trial would end one day
The email MS sent us with the licence key for it made it perfectly clear what would happen, including dates, warnings, and 2-hourly shutdowns. No-one with a legitimate install of the RC should be surprised by this at all.
Not only that, but it was made perfectly clear when you received the key for it. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who has a legitimate copy of the RC.
But that's the whole point of crumple zones - the point of impact on the car goes from 25mph to 0mph instantaneously; but because the area immediately behind it crumples, the rest of the car takes longer to go from 25mph to 0mph. Still pretty quickly, but not instantly. That reduces the deceleration you experience, and thus makes it (more) survivable.
Slashdot Mirror
That would also catch things that are definitely moons, such as Europa and Titan.
Yeah, I've heard of identity theft; always sounded like fraud to me though.
an average summer of 60 degrees Kelvin
Nitpick, but you don't say "degrees Kelvin". I suspect that this was a typo though, as you use it correctly further on.
For being where we live and containing a huge amount of life, yes.
As a planet, depends on the criteria used.
He's a lord, not an MP.
I wonder if people here will now realise why a lot of us in the UK value the fact that there is a second, non-elected House that can act as a brake on the excesses of the elected one?
What eBooks don't devalue is content, or at least they shouldn't.
Oh but they do, for a lot of people - read any story on any electronically-distributable content, and you will see lots of highly-rated comments saying that as the cost of distribution and duplication is essentially zero, the cost of the product should also be essentially zero. Authors and musicians should apparently support themselves with sponsorship, touring, merchandising, and/or a day job.
This is a server processor.
Well, the summary says "desktop CPU", while the URL of TFA says "mobile"...
Most of the things that you do on a computer will run happily on a 1GHz CPU and still not bring usage over 50% more than occasionally
Speak for yourself.
From TFA:
"Patients in a vegetative state are awake, not in a coma, but have no awareness because of severe brain damage. "
Attack the law for what it says, and how it could be abused, not for things you imagine it says. Otherwise you're on the defensive from the outset, as your opposition loudly points out that the law says no such thing *and it doesn't*.
Stop playing into their hands by discrediting yourself and making it easy to write you off as clearly misunderstanding what you're complaining about.
No, but you're potentially advocating committing a crime under the Computer Misuse Act by encouraging people to launch a DDoS attack against the site...
"I want my country to be my country , not some tower of babel style zoo."
Sounds pretty bigoted to me, the use of the word "zoo" when referring to foreigners in particular.
Well it definitely doesn't say "the government" now, but thinking more about it I think you're probably right; I first applied for SC back in around 2001/2002 or so, and I do remember something about a question being odd.
Could everyone stop it with the "ooh, X is useful to Terrorists, let's ban that!!1!" comments?
I'm as uncomfortable about some of the ramifications of this law as anyone else here, but the key phrase you're all ignoring is intended to be.
Wikipedia, the Tube, etc - all useful to terrorists, not intended to be useful to terrorists, not illegal.
A site enabling people to donate money, time, etc to terrorist causes - useful to terrorists, intended to be useful to terrorists, illegal.
Now please, by all means rail against the possible civil liberties violations, potential for misuse and abuse, etc, but let's not rewrite the law so it says something other than what it does. Doing so, and complaining about things that are not covered by it only harms otherwise legitimate complaints and concerns and makes those working against it look foolish and thus easier to dismiss.
So how would you combat the potential problem of groups (or individuals) with large sums of money seeking to influence an election in the immediate run-up to it?
Or would you not, and let anyone do, say or print whatever they want, and if it sways the result then so be it?
(Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested - although at the moment, I'm leaning in favour of preventing e.g. Murdoch using the Sun to try to swing the result in the way he wanted it to go)
So, let's get wikipedia banned, since that has plenty of material useful for terrorists
Good luck proving that it is intended to be useful for terrorists.
When I applied for security clearance, one of the questions that I had to answer was 'have you ever tried to overthrow the government by violent, political, or other means?'
I'm not sure if you're misremembering it, or they've changed it, but I filled in the forms the other week (despite already holding a current clearance - silly customer doesn't trust the usual clearance scheme and runs their own in parallel that uses the same form...) and that question pertains to "the democratic process", not the government.
Come to think of it though, I do remember some merriment along those lines the first time I applied (8 or so years ago), so perhaps they have changed it...
I wonder how many things are removed from the Internet that we simply don't get to hear about...
Sure, there are high-profile cases in which it backfires and causes the offending material to be spread far and wide, but I'd be willing to bet that that happens in a tiny minority of the cases, and that in the rest, almost no-one not directly involved ever even knows.
For those not in the know, turn in your geek card on your way out.
(Or maybe I'm just showing my age by knowing exactly what he was talking about...)
I think I remember Slashdot being forced to turn over details in a Scientology case, but I don't remember any others
Or, they've happened, but Slashdot is keeping quiet about it... </conspiracy>
a lot of people are making real choices about their browser types
Or their friend or relative has told them to use Firefox as it's "safer/better than IE" and they've gone with the flow.
another way of looking at this data is that around 40% of people are still using some form of IE. So all of those people have what is essentially their default browser
Or they have used other browsers and prefer IE.
I'm not defending IE (I hate it actually), but those figures don't support any conclusions other than that X% of people surveyed use a particular browser; it says nothing about *why* they use that browser.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. You might not have been targeted, but there's certainly evidence that the US was involved.
All the users knew beforehand that the free trial would end one day
The email MS sent us with the licence key for it made it perfectly clear what would happen, including dates, warnings, and 2-hourly shutdowns. No-one with a legitimate install of the RC should be surprised by this at all.
Not only that, but it was made perfectly clear when you received the key for it. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who has a legitimate copy of the RC.
But that's the whole point of crumple zones - the point of impact on the car goes from 25mph to 0mph instantaneously; but because the area immediately behind it crumples, the rest of the car takes longer to go from 25mph to 0mph. Still pretty quickly, but not instantly. That reduces the deceleration you experience, and thus makes it (more) survivable.