The two dimensional rings would have to have a thickness (even if it is small) when in the three dimensional world.
Actually they don't. I mean, in our world, we don't have any objects that occupy only 2 dimensions, so the whole extra dimension case is moot anyways, but in the theoretical sense, an object does not have to have a thickness.
In the realm of programming computer simulations, you are allowed to break these laws of physics. Much like how you can program two objects that don't collide with each other - something impossible to perform in real life, you can program a 2D environment with no depth inside a 3D one. In fact, they are quite often used in video games. I am refering to 1 sided objects, which essentially can only be collided into on one side of a plane. You cannot collide into it from the other side, nor can you collide into it by moving along the plane it intersects.
Similarily, you can program 3D Objects that don't occupy 4D space, the same way you can program 2D objects that don't occupy 3D space.
Is it impossible? Yes, but so is Gravity pushing the opposite way. We can theorize what it would be like, which is the same thing we do with these 4 dimensional conversations.
You can argue it must had a Depth as much as I can argue it does not have to - neither of us would be any more correct since it simply can't exist in the real world.
LoL. Admittedly, its easy to hold a conversation, but I can't shift gears while texting with my right hand. I just set it down on the passenger seat real quick while needing to shift.
And I occaisonally text while driving. Not usually phone calls, which seems a little ridiculous, I know.
I don't know if I'd call "Not being a dumb ass" as super-tasking.
It basically works like this: #1 Keep your eyes where they are supposed to be. If you are in rush hour traffic, you've got a car in front of you. Keep your eyes on that car. Pull up the phone, hold it over your steering wheel so you can see both the phone and the car in front of you.
#2, don't be talking, don't be texting, don't be looking at anything else but where you need to be when Either Changing lanes, Turning, or reversing.
#3 I hope you've memorized your T9 or have good 1 handed touch-phone capabilites, because those are nice abilities to have. In fact, with a small enough flip phone, you can just flip it open over the steering wheel to read the message, while driving. Then, left hand on the wheel, bring the right hand with the phone down by your lap. You press the reply button, start texting your T9 you have memorized, like typing at a keyboad without looking at the keys. Press send. Close the phone, put it on the seat next to you.
Oh yeah, and I drive a standard, to add to the mix, but thats as simple as knowing when you can stay in a gear for while, and not texting when you'll need to shift.
Yes - but also in the fact that there IS a price. No one is going to pay even a penny for what they can get for free.
Stop with DRM of any kind.
Then you've essentially made it easy for people to release high quality media to the piracy network. I know people who download blu-ray quality files, I couldn't tell the difference. Once you remove DRM, you have nothing to stop people from pirating but their own environment (like if they have a bad ISP).
3. You need to be convenient.
I don't particularily find the systems in place to be entirely inconvenient. I hear nothing but positive reviews for Netflix, Apple guys won't stop boasting about iTunes... Steam handles games rather well. But they are all publishers trying to stop Piracy.
4. For all the talk of piracy, you're still turning strong profits.
I wish we could so easily convince people to rid themselves of their greed. This isn't about whether they are making money, but whether they are making enough money. And their answer is always "no".
5. Promote better Internet access.
This is expensive. By keeping internet supply down they can keep internet prices up. Supply and demand, don't want too much supply. And it stops people from downloading. They won't spend money on upgrading till they have to.
6. Did I mention dropping your prices and giving up on the anti-piracy crap?
I don't think those will save any product. I think that would be a disaster, from a business standpoint. Say tomorrow, iTunes drops its prices to 25 cents a song, but removes all DRM from its system.
Now, I didn't feel like paying 99 cents, 75 cents, or 50 cents for a song. I can now get those songs for free using any pirating software out there.
Alright lets say DVD's come down to 8 bucks a move, maybe 12 for a new release. Well, without DRM, I know I could wait about 2 days, hop on a site and find download a ripped version. I cheaped out on internet so it'll take 3 days to download, but then again, I waited a month for it to come out on DvD so whats a little longer?
Games? Well if theres no DRM, theres no harm copying the CD for my room mate. He wants to get his best friend on this two. Awesome, 3 people to play with. Oh hey, before you know it, we've got a 20 person Clan going! And what do you know, there were probably over 300 copies of my CD made in the first month. And I can just imagine how many more are coming down the pipe.
Stop clinging to a dying past. Change is painful, but that doesn't stop us from having to adapt.
It isn't dying now anymore than it was 50 years ago. Should things roll into a more internet central cloud based system, there will still be DRM, and people will still be fighting piracy. You can quote me on those famous last words.
He says that it works in other PDF Readers (well he mentioned one, Foxit) - because he's not exploiting a vulnerability in any of the applications, but the PDF Language itself.
So, chances are, you are just as vulnerable. He also said he reported it to Adobe, without releasing his proof of concept to the public - so we'll see what comes out of it.
It might just end up that Adobe products become more secure for reading PDFs than the others, and Adobe then has an upper hand.
[tinfoil speculation] And if thats the case, why would they inform other PDF Readers. And unless the proof of concept is made public, how do we know there is actually a vulnerability besides the word of this hacker and Adobe? [/tinfoil speculation]
Until consumers have a compelling reason to buy an authorized copy
Thats the problem with the system - is that an unauthorized copy can be more than enough for most people. So what are you going to do to make the authorized copy more compelling?
Name something you can add to an authorized copy that can't be added to an unauthorized copy. Aside from something physical you can't download (like a poster), or locking it with DRM (which people fight against) you simply can't make it more compelling to buy.
Tell you what - implement a system that says if I own every CD by a given band, and I take it down to Ticketmaster I can get 50% off the ticket price for that band - I will certainly revert to buying CD's once again.
I'm living in a dream world - no one wants to make authorized copies THAT compelling to buy, theres no money in it!
If I go home tonight, can I log on to MSN Messager and expect it to be painfully easy to download all of this week's Xbox 360 releases with just a few clicks?
Hey, if I've got a friend who buys all this week's 360 releases and Rips them into ISO's for me, then I sure as heck could.
So what seperates IsoHunt from say an MSN Chatroom, where I happen to come across such a buddy. The fact that it makes the process more efficient?
They shouldn't be stopping the people optimizing the downloading, they should be stopping the people downloading, or the ones uploading!
I don't buy drugs and I don't deal drugs but if I tell someone who wants drugs where a drug dealer is - that isn't going to land me jail time or a fine. In fact, the police aren't even looking for me. They're looking for the other two guys.
No. That is kind of what happens with torrents already - the files aren't being hosted by IsoHunt, IsoHunt is just telling your application (like BitTorrent or whatever) where it can find the actual files your looking for. The torrent is just a pointer to who has the file. So to point to a different company hosting the torrent file is about the same thing - and they'd probably be ordered to take down the links.
IsoHunt and Torrenting in general is just a service, to connect people. In the same way MSN connects me to my friends and websites connect me to news.
Making IsoHunt responsible for the copyrighted material would be like making Microsoft responsible for Copyrighted material I share with my friends over filesharing through Live messenger.
Now, if I go home and do that tonight, can I expect US District Judge Stephen Wilson to order MSN to cut off filesharing?
You put a box inside a safe. That safe has no doors. How do you get the box outside the safe? You slide it through the fourth dimension - so that the walls of the safe are no longer in the way. You change its XYZ co-ordinates, slide it back through the fourth dimension so its about where it began. The box is now outside the safe.
If thats still a little tricky to understand, we'll explain it flatland style.
You draw a circle inside of a square on a piece of paper. How do you get the circle outside of the square (assuming you can't move the lines through each other). Well, if you had the ability to take the circle off the paper, move it a few inches, and place it back on the paper, you would have moved it outside of the square with no intersection taking place.
The same thing is happening here, you are taking two rings, sliding them among a dimension that they do not occupy (thus removing any chance for collision) and then putting them back. Its tough to wrap your mind around, I know.
You either don't understand time or you don't understand spatial.
Suppose you are a 2 by 2 by 2 cube. One corner reaches 0,0,0 coordinates and the other corner reaches 2,2,2. I am also a cube of the same size. I could not occupy 1,1,1 simply because you are in the way.
Now, lets suppose time is another dimension. Same scenario, except you are essentially INFINITE in your last dimension (time) because you never disappear, your matter is always physically present* (One of Newtons laws I think, energy and matter remain constant?). So 0,0,0,infinite to 2,2,2,infinite.
Under no circumstances could I occupy 1,1,1 while you are there. You could say that at 0 seconds you are there and at 2 seconds you are not there, but that would mean that your co-ordinates change depending on your time. That seperates it as a spatial dimension, since all of them are independant from each other. Movement along the X axis does not change your Y, or Z, and same for the others. Moving along t should not affect your X,Y, or Z.
However, in the real world - it does. In the real world, your X,Y,Z is derived using Time. Deeply intricate yes, but time is not spatial.
*Yes, I know you can move, you do not remain stationary forever, I'l get to that
Well it depends on its rotation as well. For example a cube entering flatland would either pop up, stay the same, disappear, or dot-grow-shrink, depending on whether you are introducing the cube with one of the sides in parallel with the plane, or whether you to so with a vertice entering first.
Miegakure suggests that there is a fourth spatial dimention, just like the three you are used to seeing.
Take a read through Flatland, its a short story based on a square who lives on a 2 dimentional plane. Basically how he can only see things in 1 Dimension (a line) because him and his world are on a single plane. Now, imagine his world lives within our 3d Realm. His life doesn't change much, until we choose to interfere. Imagine if you slid a ball through his 2d plane. He would at first see nothing, then a dot, then that dot grow into a line, then it shrink, into a dot, and disappear.
Basically someone took this idea, and imagined what it would be like if there were a 4th spatial dimension we were unaware of (physics has however shown us that there isn't one). If someone pushed a 4d Cube (or hypercube) through our 3d plane, what would we see? Nothing at first, then a cube show up, then it grows into its full size, then shrink back down, and disappear.
Now someone has taken that idea and put it in a game. The programming is actually simpler than it seems. Instead of testing XYZ co-ordinates you are testing WXYZ co-ordinates.
The 1st Matrix movie was good. I don't see the analogy.
In the same way that when I watch the Matrix Now, it's "Gritty-ness" is lost, the mysteriousness of it is cliche, and the slow motion seems gimmicky.
Now when I watch Independence Day - it was always a cheesey, laugh at me, "oh my gawdz aliens!" flick. It poked more fun at itself then I ever could have hoped to achieve. It is even funnier today than it was when it was released. Because now the meme has gone around to fear Jeff Goldblum's powerbook.
However, I feel that Independance day deserves to remain a single movie more than the Matrix did, even after it's sequels have come out.
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.
What distinction are they making between the two? There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.
My room mate is like that. He proposed the following interesting question.
You are driving a train. By the hypothetical powers that control this scenario, the main track ahead goes over a bridge and the bridge so happens to be out. There are 3 passengers on your train. If you let the train go off the rail by your inaction, they will die. Your other option, is to switch the track up ahead. However, some fiendish fiend has tied a woman up on the tracks, like those cliche western movies.
Now, it is impossible to stop the train in time. Do you
A) Let 3 passengers and yourself die by the tragic hands of Fate, keeping a clear conscience? B) Murder the lady knowingly, knowing that you have spared the lives of 3 others?
Now that you have decided your answer, defend your point from scrutiny. After that - consider these altered scenarios:
The lady is replaced with a friend of yours. The passengers are strangers. And Vice Versa. Suppose you chose B, but were to die along with the lady but the passengers would live. Suppose the person or the group of people you decide to save were Convicted Murderers, would that alter your decision?
I have learned more about my friends from this social experiment than any other night of crazed drinking.
In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours. Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad
I know! I think the most ridiculous idea is that people are PAYING for this software! You get your IT guys to put some Open Source Linux variant on their routers that keep track of internet usage - and compare it with an IP-Table for those well known sites - and you'll know who is on Facebook when. If your company is larger than 10 people you probably have an "IT Department" and they should know how to handle all of that.
Or single. Or sacrafices are made, its no different then a girlfriend going to Grad school and not seeing her for a year. This is just a summer.
But, then again, Ancient Romans... err... well... You know how it is. When you live in a society that glorifies males as the superior sex, those kinds of things tend to happen. I wonder if these students will make a few discoveries this summer, and maybe not about history, but themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
*Looks left*
Clever girl...
The two dimensional rings would have to have a thickness (even if it is small) when in the three dimensional world.
Actually they don't. I mean, in our world, we don't have any objects that occupy only 2 dimensions, so the whole extra dimension case is moot anyways, but in the theoretical sense, an object does not have to have a thickness.
In the realm of programming computer simulations, you are allowed to break these laws of physics. Much like how you can program two objects that don't collide with each other - something impossible to perform in real life, you can program a 2D environment with no depth inside a 3D one. In fact, they are quite often used in video games. I am refering to 1 sided objects, which essentially can only be collided into on one side of a plane. You cannot collide into it from the other side, nor can you collide into it by moving along the plane it intersects.
Similarily, you can program 3D Objects that don't occupy 4D space, the same way you can program 2D objects that don't occupy 3D space.
Is it impossible? Yes, but so is Gravity pushing the opposite way. We can theorize what it would be like, which is the same thing we do with these 4 dimensional conversations.
You can argue it must had a Depth as much as I can argue it does not have to - neither of us would be any more correct since it simply can't exist in the real world.
LoL. Admittedly, its easy to hold a conversation, but I can't shift gears while texting with my right hand. I just set it down on the passenger seat real quick while needing to shift.
And I occaisonally text while driving. Not usually phone calls, which seems a little ridiculous, I know.
I don't know if I'd call "Not being a dumb ass" as super-tasking.
It basically works like this:
#1 Keep your eyes where they are supposed to be. If you are in rush hour traffic, you've got a car in front of you. Keep your eyes on that car. Pull up the phone, hold it over your steering wheel so you can see both the phone and the car in front of you.
#2, don't be talking, don't be texting, don't be looking at anything else but where you need to be when Either Changing lanes, Turning, or reversing.
#3 I hope you've memorized your T9 or have good 1 handed touch-phone capabilites, because those are nice abilities to have. In fact, with a small enough flip phone, you can just flip it open over the steering wheel to read the message, while driving. Then, left hand on the wheel, bring the right hand with the phone down by your lap. You press the reply button, start texting your T9 you have memorized, like typing at a keyboad without looking at the keys. Press send. Close the phone, put it on the seat next to you.
Oh yeah, and I drive a standard, to add to the mix, but thats as simple as knowing when you can stay in a gear for while, and not texting when you'll need to shift.
1. Yes, it's about price.
Yes - but also in the fact that there IS a price. No one is going to pay even a penny for what they can get for free.
Stop with DRM of any kind.
Then you've essentially made it easy for people to release high quality media to the piracy network. I know people who download blu-ray quality files, I couldn't tell the difference. Once you remove DRM, you have nothing to stop people from pirating but their own environment (like if they have a bad ISP).
3. You need to be convenient.
I don't particularily find the systems in place to be entirely inconvenient. I hear nothing but positive reviews for Netflix, Apple guys won't stop boasting about iTunes... Steam handles games rather well. But they are all publishers trying to stop Piracy.
4. For all the talk of piracy, you're still turning strong profits.
I wish we could so easily convince people to rid themselves of their greed. This isn't about whether they are making money, but whether they are making enough money. And their answer is always "no".
5. Promote better Internet access.
This is expensive. By keeping internet supply down they can keep internet prices up. Supply and demand, don't want too much supply. And it stops people from downloading. They won't spend money on upgrading till they have to.
6. Did I mention dropping your prices and giving up on the anti-piracy crap?
I don't think those will save any product. I think that would be a disaster, from a business standpoint. Say tomorrow, iTunes drops its prices to 25 cents a song, but removes all DRM from its system.
Now, I didn't feel like paying 99 cents, 75 cents, or 50 cents for a song. I can now get those songs for free using any pirating software out there.
Alright lets say DVD's come down to 8 bucks a move, maybe 12 for a new release. Well, without DRM, I know I could wait about 2 days, hop on a site and find download a ripped version. I cheaped out on internet so it'll take 3 days to download, but then again, I waited a month for it to come out on DvD so whats a little longer?
Games? Well if theres no DRM, theres no harm copying the CD for my room mate. He wants to get his best friend on this two. Awesome, 3 people to play with. Oh hey, before you know it, we've got a 20 person Clan going! And what do you know, there were probably over 300 copies of my CD made in the first month. And I can just imagine how many more are coming down the pipe.
Stop clinging to a dying past. Change is painful, but that doesn't stop us from having to adapt.
It isn't dying now anymore than it was 50 years ago. Should things roll into a more internet central cloud based system, there will still be DRM, and people will still be fighting piracy. You can quote me on those famous last words.
He says that it works in other PDF Readers (well he mentioned one, Foxit) - because he's not exploiting a vulnerability in any of the applications, but the PDF Language itself.
So, chances are, you are just as vulnerable. He also said he reported it to Adobe, without releasing his proof of concept to the public - so we'll see what comes out of it.
It might just end up that Adobe products become more secure for reading PDFs than the others, and Adobe then has an upper hand.
[tinfoil speculation]
And if thats the case, why would they inform other PDF Readers. And unless the proof of concept is made public, how do we know there is actually a vulnerability besides the word of this hacker and Adobe?
[/tinfoil speculation]
Under what Law? Knowing people? Not reporting a drug dealer? I didn't report a jaywalker, am I going to be arrested for that as well?
Point is most police find you more useful as an informant than you are behind bars for something as trivial as that.
Ah - but the police wouldn't shut me down. They'd take my information and bust the drug dealers.
So why aren't they doing this? Oh the Seed is in China? The Leech is in Germany?
Then I guess it really isn't their business then, is it?
Until consumers have a compelling reason to buy an authorized copy
Thats the problem with the system - is that an unauthorized copy can be more than enough for most people. So what are you going to do to make the authorized copy more compelling?
Name something you can add to an authorized copy that can't be added to an unauthorized copy. Aside from something physical you can't download (like a poster), or locking it with DRM (which people fight against) you simply can't make it more compelling to buy.
Tell you what - implement a system that says if I own every CD by a given band, and I take it down to Ticketmaster I can get 50% off the ticket price for that band - I will certainly revert to buying CD's once again.
I'm living in a dream world - no one wants to make authorized copies THAT compelling to buy, theres no money in it!
If 80% of people use the internet to download music, wouldn't that be enough reason for the MPAA to attack the internet?
Ah, and my ISP is just the service connecting me to Isohunt, so why aren't they getting the pants sued off them?
If I go home tonight, can I log on to MSN Messager and expect it to be painfully easy to download all of this week's Xbox 360 releases with just a few clicks?
Hey, if I've got a friend who buys all this week's 360 releases and Rips them into ISO's for me, then I sure as heck could.
So what seperates IsoHunt from say an MSN Chatroom, where I happen to come across such a buddy. The fact that it makes the process more efficient?
They shouldn't be stopping the people optimizing the downloading, they should be stopping the people downloading, or the ones uploading!
I don't buy drugs and I don't deal drugs but if I tell someone who wants drugs where a drug dealer is - that isn't going to land me jail time or a fine. In fact, the police aren't even looking for me. They're looking for the other two guys.
No. That is kind of what happens with torrents already - the files aren't being hosted by IsoHunt, IsoHunt is just telling your application (like BitTorrent or whatever) where it can find the actual files your looking for. The torrent is just a pointer to who has the file. So to point to a different company hosting the torrent file is about the same thing - and they'd probably be ordered to take down the links.
IsoHunt and Torrenting in general is just a service, to connect people. In the same way MSN connects me to my friends and websites connect me to news.
Making IsoHunt responsible for the copyrighted material would be like making Microsoft responsible for Copyrighted material I share with my friends over filesharing through Live messenger.
Now, if I go home and do that tonight, can I expect US District Judge Stephen Wilson to order MSN to cut off filesharing?
On Slashdot, laughing at people who lose their job over farmville and facebook.
At least I can claim I'm keeping up to date with technology by visiting a tech web site.
Simple. One doesn't end and the other goes on forever.
Think about it this way:
You put a box inside a safe. That safe has no doors. How do you get the box outside the safe? You slide it through the fourth dimension - so that the walls of the safe are no longer in the way. You change its XYZ co-ordinates, slide it back through the fourth dimension so its about where it began. The box is now outside the safe.
If thats still a little tricky to understand, we'll explain it flatland style.
You draw a circle inside of a square on a piece of paper. How do you get the circle outside of the square (assuming you can't move the lines through each other). Well, if you had the ability to take the circle off the paper, move it a few inches, and place it back on the paper, you would have moved it outside of the square with no intersection taking place.
The same thing is happening here, you are taking two rings, sliding them among a dimension that they do not occupy (thus removing any chance for collision) and then putting them back. Its tough to wrap your mind around, I know.
What is to say that time isn't spatial?
You either don't understand time or you don't understand spatial.
Suppose you are a 2 by 2 by 2 cube. One corner reaches 0,0,0 coordinates and the other corner reaches 2,2,2. I am also a cube of the same size. I could not occupy 1,1,1 simply because you are in the way.
Now, lets suppose time is another dimension. Same scenario, except you are essentially INFINITE in your last dimension (time) because you never disappear, your matter is always physically present* (One of Newtons laws I think, energy and matter remain constant?).
So 0,0,0,infinite to 2,2,2,infinite.
Under no circumstances could I occupy 1,1,1 while you are there. You could say that at 0 seconds you are there and at 2 seconds you are not there, but that would mean that your co-ordinates change depending on your time. That seperates it as a spatial dimension, since all of them are independant from each other. Movement along the X axis does not change your Y, or Z, and same for the others. Moving along t should not affect your X,Y, or Z.
However, in the real world - it does. In the real world, your X,Y,Z is derived using Time. Deeply intricate yes, but time is not spatial.
*Yes, I know you can move, you do not remain stationary forever, I'l get to that
Well it depends on its rotation as well. For example a cube entering flatland would either pop up, stay the same, disappear, or dot-grow-shrink, depending on whether you are introducing the cube with one of the sides in parallel with the plane, or whether you to so with a vertice entering first.
Miegakure suggests that there is a fourth spatial dimention, just like the three you are used to seeing.
Take a read through Flatland, its a short story based on a square who lives on a 2 dimentional plane. Basically how he can only see things in 1 Dimension (a line) because him and his world are on a single plane. Now, imagine his world lives within our 3d Realm. His life doesn't change much, until we choose to interfere. Imagine if you slid a ball through his 2d plane. He would at first see nothing, then a dot, then that dot grow into a line, then it shrink, into a dot, and disappear.
Basically someone took this idea, and imagined what it would be like if there were a 4th spatial dimension we were unaware of (physics has however shown us that there isn't one). If someone pushed a 4d Cube (or hypercube) through our 3d plane, what would we see? Nothing at first, then a cube show up, then it grows into its full size, then shrink back down, and disappear.
Now someone has taken that idea and put it in a game. The programming is actually simpler than it seems. Instead of testing XYZ co-ordinates you are testing WXYZ co-ordinates.
The 1st Matrix movie was good. I don't see the analogy.
In the same way that when I watch the Matrix Now, it's "Gritty-ness" is lost, the mysteriousness of it is cliche, and the slow motion seems gimmicky.
Now when I watch Independence Day - it was always a cheesey, laugh at me, "oh my gawdz aliens!" flick. It poked more fun at itself then I ever could have hoped to achieve. It is even funnier today than it was when it was released. Because now the meme has gone around to fear Jeff Goldblum's powerbook.
However, I feel that Independance day deserves to remain a single movie more than the Matrix did, even after it's sequels have come out.
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.
What distinction are they making between the two? There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.
My room mate is like that. He proposed the following interesting question.
You are driving a train. By the hypothetical powers that control this scenario, the main track ahead goes over a bridge and the bridge so happens to be out. There are 3 passengers on your train. If you let the train go off the rail by your inaction, they will die. Your other option, is to switch the track up ahead. However, some fiendish fiend has tied a woman up on the tracks, like those cliche western movies.
Now, it is impossible to stop the train in time. Do you
A) Let 3 passengers and yourself die by the tragic hands of Fate, keeping a clear conscience?
B) Murder the lady knowingly, knowing that you have spared the lives of 3 others?
Now that you have decided your answer, defend your point from scrutiny.
After that - consider these altered scenarios:
The lady is replaced with a friend of yours. The passengers are strangers. And Vice Versa.
Suppose you chose B, but were to die along with the lady but the passengers would live.
Suppose the person or the group of people you decide to save were Convicted Murderers, would that alter your decision?
I have learned more about my friends from this social experiment than any other night of crazed drinking.
You just need a signed document saying so.
Most of those cases have been closed now, in favour of the men not paying child support anymore.
In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours. Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad
I know! I think the most ridiculous idea is that people are PAYING for this software! You get your IT guys to put some Open Source Linux variant on their routers that keep track of internet usage - and compare it with an IP-Table for those well known sites - and you'll know who is on Facebook when. If your company is larger than 10 people you probably have an "IT Department" and they should know how to handle all of that.
Or single. Or sacrafices are made, its no different then a girlfriend going to Grad school and not seeing her for a year. This is just a summer.
But, then again, Ancient Romans... err... well... You know how it is. When you live in a society that glorifies males as the superior sex, those kinds of things tend to happen. I wonder if these students will make a few discoveries this summer, and maybe not about history, but themselves.