Like I said - I'm not against the tax system the way it is - I agree that those with more money getting taxed more will lead to a better society - but I can at least see their point that it's not fair - because it's not THEIR job to take care of sick children.
Healthcare - in any sense of government operated - is almost never truly 'budget neutral' - in that the money is coming from somewhere. Either you are paying for the services, or only paying for some, or not paying at all. In the first case - it's almost as if there isn't any health care system at all. In any of the other cases, that money is coming from somewhere.
Access to healthcare is always considered a part of ones wealth, I don't understand how you are seperating the issue, because health care isn't free, its not some magic fairy pixie dust that is so infinite we can spread it around the world. I think the direct correlation between nations having money having health care and the nations that don't have money NOT having health care, really does speak for itself.
Funny Similar story - one day we found one of our buildings was getting bad IP addresses. 192.168's, so thats even more odd, that whole building is on 172.21.0.whatever. We couldn't figure it out at first, nothing wrong with our servers. Tracing it back from one of the computers with a Bad IP, we determined, there was a rogue router plugged into our network, DHCP was still enabled and this little Linksys thing was causing a world of trouble - luckily it was set to the default username and password otherwise we might have had difficulty grabbing the MAC Address of it.
There was no way to determine where exactly in the building it was, didn't even have the WiFi turned on - so we had to go into the logs of all our switches looking for this MAC Address so we could follow it through the patch panel to whatever port it was in. Meanwhile we're scanning around the building as fast as we can looking for this thing - to no avail.
Turns out - in the corner of this one area that IT -never- goes to, there it was, plugged into the network, and plugged into 3 machines. We work at a laboratory so its not uncommon to see instruments all strung together on their own subnet connected via a simple switch - which is exactly what was happening here.
Cleaning guy accidentally unplugged it last night while sweeping. When he plugged it back in he mixed up the lan and Wan cables.
Something so simple tied us all up all morning. We're much better prepared for that kinda stuff now.
Someone on here earlier was saying that the Jester doesn't have the smarts or the technology to pull off something like the DDoS thats been happening to Wikileaks - and if that's true I wouldn't be surprised if this is just some fabricated story to pump up Jester's "cred" as a "leet hacker".
Seriously? This question has to be asked? Did you not recieve the basic high school education?
We'll break it down into simple items. Imagine there are NO taxes. No income to the government. In order to recieve health care - you have to pay for it yourself, 100%. Its quite costly, so the government offers a plan to help reduce the cost, they'll cover most of it. However, in order to pay for it, they have to take small bits from everyone, instead of those injured or sick. Thus - those who don't recieve need to recieve Health-care are paying money to basically subsidize those who do. Wealth redistribution. They might have been perfectly happy with the old system of paying for it when they need it.
Onto the second part - they don't really consider it "Wealth redistribution" when the upper clas gets a tax break - essentially the taxes have worked on a sliding scale that if you make more money you pay more taxes - which of course the upper class are not going to feel is fair. Is he using the roads anymore than the average joe? Is he using the hospitals more than the average joe? Is he needing more firefighters than the average joe? Why is he paying more money then?
Now, as a disclaimer, I don't really support the ideas listed above. I live in Canada, I like our health care system, education, etc, I'm more than willing to pay the taxes to cover those kinds of social benefits.
But when you can't at least show basic understanding of the issues - like you're having trouble seeing it from the other side... thats just so narrow minded.
Well all the radio commercials are calling it "The Holiday season" and "Gifts for the Holidays" instead of openly saying C++mas or Javakkuh or even Kwanzaa.
I blame those guys promoting those 4th level languages with more verbosity and higher amounts abstraction. It's obviously led to the generalization of the holidays.
Though - I suppose thats what the assembly programmers were saying about me last year...
do I want to get a phone that the previous owner may have taken to every strip club, brothel, Al Qaida meeting, and presidential assassination attempt? No thanks. I get into enough trouble on my own.
Oh I know eh? It's hard to keep that sex-addiction-secret-terrorist life under-wraps with the Misses always checking my phone.
I hate that attitude. It's an "I'm either right, or its a good thing that I'm wrong" with a bit of a "There's nothing I can do" mixed in.
When people adopt this attitude, the super rich have already won. They get content knowing the outcome of things even when it harms them. All that matters is being right, right?
Have you never heard the song Raise A Little Hell?
The problem is not that the amount of traffic increases to stresses it can't handle, those are upgrades we have the technology for but just aren't spending the money - we'll worry about those when it actually becomes a problem.
The issue they are talking about abstractly is the way trust issues work on the net - and how its possible for a Chinese ISP to get 15% of traffic by saying "I'm super trustworthy".
In Laymens terms, they want to un-naive the interwebs.
I hear its because he's been behind closed doors dealing with The Gregory Brothers to get the sound JUST right - so that when he makes such an announcement it can easily make the next "Auto-Tune the News" Episode and go viral in mere seconds.
I always have to keep ONE desktop clean. When I'm at work, I've got shortcuts to all these various spreadsheets, random applications, little batch files, it's a mess all over. My actual work desk has to remain clean so my boss isn't embarassed when the CEO comes by for a chat.
At home, I've got maybe 8 or so icons for the rudimentary stuff, everything else can be accessed via some hotykey combination or is pinned to the task bar or something - so the desktop wallpaper is clear and visible at all times. However - last weeks box of pizza, and about a dozen grape soda cans take up a majority of the space.
That seems to be the way the RIAA spins it, but I think the issue is that they can't actually claim that they know the person uploaded the song to other people unless they have proof of that with numbers at which point they can only charge them for the number of uploads given off their PC.
I wish the law field was filled with more computer technicians.
Well I guess I might as well as hop in the ring and get modded down as well. Time for one of those annoying point/counterpoint posts.
She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.
No. It's not always like that. The article doesn't say when this took place. When I was 16, I didn't know downloading music was considered illegal. Like her - I naturally assumed that since you don't get the full content that comes with a CD, and that songs are played for free on the radio DAILY with no laws against recording the radio - that downloading music was not an issue at all. It was only once I started reading the news (as most teenagers don't actually read the news, go figure) that I found out the whole issue with Napster and Metallica causing a whole big stink. NOW I know there is an issue, and back then I didn't - which is what she's claiming.
Look. I pirate and many others on/. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.
Thats the thing - some of us disagree in it's illegality. Like mentioned with Radio before, they get to air it for free, and I can record any song on the radio, put the sound file on my MP3, and I am completely free of any Copyright issues. Mixed tapes were all the rage, why aren't there ridiculous lawsuits against every highschool romantic guy who ever made a mixed tape?
If you do something illegal and get caught, even if we think the penalty is horrible, the excuses some people use are ridiculous. If she was so naive to think that there was nothing illegal about downloading the music and not paying for it, then how in the hell did she figure out how to do it in the first place. I am trying to say that every single person that pirates knows it is illegal. Well, most people do. If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.
This is EXACLTY the point she is trying to make: She was just a teenager. She wasn't some leet phreak hacker like you or I - she wasn't visitting Slashdot every day of the week and wasn't a proud supporter of open source technology. She was someone who probably went over to a friends house, they said "Hey, see this thing called Limewire? You can use it to download songs. Its great! Here', I'll set it up when I'm over at your house next".
She likely had NO idea of the consequences when this happened.
If you are going to download music, there is always a chance of getting caught. This excuse is a horrible excuse as well
Yes - but when you aren't aware it's illegal, thats where the contraversy arises. No - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - you can't say "But I didn't know!". What creates a problem is the double standards - when it is perfectly fine for someone to create a duplicate copy of a song in one way without any consequence but doing it in a certain way ends in multiple thousands of dollars in lawsuits.
'My interest is peaked' (...) makes literal sense in English
Except that it doesn't, assuming these possible definitions (Ending in a peak, Having a sickly appearance, and Having a peak). It's syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless, because interest, as an abstract entity, has neither form nor appearance
Except that it would have some abstract value, because you can be mildly interested, quite interested, or very interested - who while you can't exactly measure it in units it can still be represented by abstract values (Like a spinal tap amp that goes up to 11).
Saying his interest has peaked can be infered to that his interest is at "it's peak" which the definition of peak is: the pointed top of anything. his interest is at its top possible value.
Could you have possibly put a little more thought into it before going on a rant about it?
Slashdot Mirror
Its a portmanteau!
Exa (obviously being a step above Peta which is above Tera which is above Giga and so on and so forth)
and scale. Which is self-explanatory.
The best part about English is silly quirks like portmanteaus. Don't try to be pedantic.
Like I said - I'm not against the tax system the way it is - I agree that those with more money getting taxed more will lead to a better society - but I can at least see their point that it's not fair - because it's not THEIR job to take care of sick children.
Healthcare - in any sense of government operated - is almost never truly 'budget neutral' - in that the money is coming from somewhere. Either you are paying for the services, or only paying for some, or not paying at all. In the first case - it's almost as if there isn't any health care system at all. In any of the other cases, that money is coming from somewhere.
Access to healthcare is always considered a part of ones wealth, I don't understand how you are seperating the issue, because health care isn't free, its not some magic fairy pixie dust that is so infinite we can spread it around the world. I think the direct correlation between nations having money having health care and the nations that don't have money NOT having health care, really does speak for itself.
Then why stop him now?
Funny Similar story - one day we found one of our buildings was getting bad IP addresses. 192.168's, so thats even more odd, that whole building is on 172.21.0.whatever. We couldn't figure it out at first, nothing wrong with our servers. Tracing it back from one of the computers with a Bad IP, we determined, there was a rogue router plugged into our network, DHCP was still enabled and this little Linksys thing was causing a world of trouble - luckily it was set to the default username and password otherwise we might have had difficulty grabbing the MAC Address of it.
There was no way to determine where exactly in the building it was, didn't even have the WiFi turned on - so we had to go into the logs of all our switches looking for this MAC Address so we could follow it through the patch panel to whatever port it was in. Meanwhile we're scanning around the building as fast as we can looking for this thing - to no avail.
Turns out - in the corner of this one area that IT -never- goes to, there it was, plugged into the network, and plugged into 3 machines. We work at a laboratory so its not uncommon to see instruments all strung together on their own subnet connected via a simple switch - which is exactly what was happening here.
Cleaning guy accidentally unplugged it last night while sweeping. When he plugged it back in he mixed up the lan and Wan cables.
Something so simple tied us all up all morning. We're much better prepared for that kinda stuff now.
Only someone dumb enough to give him money would ask a question like that.
m0nk33dud3 concurs.
Someone on here earlier was saying that the Jester doesn't have the smarts or the technology to pull off something like the DDoS thats been happening to Wikileaks - and if that's true I wouldn't be surprised if this is just some fabricated story to pump up Jester's "cred" as a "leet hacker".
Seriously? This question has to be asked? Did you not recieve the basic high school education?
We'll break it down into simple items. Imagine there are NO taxes. No income to the government. In order to recieve health care - you have to pay for it yourself, 100%. Its quite costly, so the government offers a plan to help reduce the cost, they'll cover most of it. However, in order to pay for it, they have to take small bits from everyone, instead of those injured or sick. Thus - those who don't recieve need to recieve Health-care are paying money to basically subsidize those who do. Wealth redistribution. They might have been perfectly happy with the old system of paying for it when they need it.
Onto the second part - they don't really consider it "Wealth redistribution" when the upper clas gets a tax break - essentially the taxes have worked on a sliding scale that if you make more money you pay more taxes - which of course the upper class are not going to feel is fair. Is he using the roads anymore than the average joe? Is he using the hospitals more than the average joe? Is he needing more firefighters than the average joe? Why is he paying more money then?
Now, as a disclaimer, I don't really support the ideas listed above. I live in Canada, I like our health care system, education, etc, I'm more than willing to pay the taxes to cover those kinds of social benefits.
But when you can't at least show basic understanding of the issues - like you're having trouble seeing it from the other side... thats just so narrow minded.
Well all the radio commercials are calling it "The Holiday season" and "Gifts for the Holidays" instead of openly saying C++mas or Javakkuh or even Kwanzaa.
I blame those guys promoting those 4th level languages with more verbosity and higher amounts abstraction. It's obviously led to the generalization of the holidays.
Though - I suppose thats what the assembly programmers were saying about me last year...
I mean, if you don't listen to 'em the rest of the time, why would you start during sex?
do I want to get a phone that the previous owner may have taken to every strip club, brothel, Al Qaida meeting, and presidential assassination attempt? No thanks. I get into enough trouble on my own.
Oh I know eh? It's hard to keep that sex-addiction-secret-terrorist life under-wraps with the Misses always checking my phone.
why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?
Because she is even more hilarious than when Tina Fey makes fun of her.
Will you settle for cats, dogs, or bouncy red balls?
Wouldn't the SIM/SD card make the process entirely irrelevant? If your number is sticking with you, your fingerprint will too.
Personally, I celebrate Javakkuh.
I hate that attitude. It's an "I'm either right, or its a good thing that I'm wrong" with a bit of a "There's nothing I can do" mixed in.
When people adopt this attitude, the super rich have already won. They get content knowing the outcome of things even when it harms them. All that matters is being right, right?
Have you never heard the song Raise A Little Hell?
Don't ever "Just Watch"
The problem is not that the amount of traffic increases to stresses it can't handle, those are upgrades we have the technology for but just aren't spending the money - we'll worry about those when it actually becomes a problem.
The issue they are talking about abstractly is the way trust issues work on the net - and how its possible for a Chinese ISP to get 15% of traffic by saying "I'm super trustworthy".
In Laymens terms, they want to un-naive the interwebs.
At your nearest art college. Seriously - just go down there and walk the hallways one day - you will find this kind of stuff everywhere.
I hear its because he's been behind closed doors dealing with The Gregory Brothers to get the sound JUST right - so that when he makes such an announcement it can easily make the next "Auto-Tune the News" Episode and go viral in mere seconds.
I thought the issue was that the FCC had no power in the issue - not that they couldn't decide what to do?
Have I been wrong all this time?
I always have to keep ONE desktop clean. When I'm at work, I've got shortcuts to all these various spreadsheets, random applications, little batch files, it's a mess all over. My actual work desk has to remain clean so my boss isn't embarassed when the CEO comes by for a chat.
At home, I've got maybe 8 or so icons for the rudimentary stuff, everything else can be accessed via some hotykey combination or is pinned to the task bar or something - so the desktop wallpaper is clear and visible at all times. However - last weeks box of pizza, and about a dozen grape soda cans take up a majority of the space.
That seems to be the way the RIAA spins it, but I think the issue is that they can't actually claim that they know the person uploaded the song to other people unless they have proof of that with numbers at which point they can only charge them for the number of uploads given off their PC.
I wish the law field was filled with more computer technicians.
That's one of those analogies where the actual situation is easier to understand than your analogy.
Well I guess I might as well as hop in the ring and get modded down as well. Time for one of those annoying point/counterpoint posts.
She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a
Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.
No. It's not always like that. The article doesn't say when this took place. When I was 16, I didn't know downloading music was considered illegal. Like her - I naturally assumed that since you don't get the full content that comes with a CD, and that songs are played for free on the radio DAILY with no laws against recording the radio - that downloading music was not an issue at all. It was only once I started reading the news (as most teenagers don't actually read the news, go figure) that I found out the whole issue with Napster and Metallica causing a whole big stink. NOW I know there is an issue, and back then I didn't - which is what she's claiming.
Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.
Thats the thing - some of us disagree in it's illegality. Like mentioned with Radio before, they get to air it for free, and I can record any song on the radio, put the sound file on my MP3, and I am completely free of any Copyright issues. Mixed tapes were all the rage, why aren't there ridiculous lawsuits against every highschool romantic guy who ever made a mixed tape?
If you do something illegal and get caught, even if we think the penalty is horrible, the excuses some people use are ridiculous. If she was so naive to think that there was nothing illegal about downloading the music and not paying for it, then how in the hell did she figure out how to do it in the first place. I am trying to say that every single person that pirates knows it is illegal. Well, most people do. If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.
This is EXACLTY the point she is trying to make: She was just a teenager. She wasn't some leet phreak hacker like you or I - she wasn't visitting Slashdot every day of the week and wasn't a proud supporter of open source technology. She was someone who probably went over to a friends house, they said "Hey, see this thing called Limewire? You can use it to download songs. Its great! Here', I'll set it up when I'm over at your house next".
She likely had NO idea of the consequences when this happened.
If you are going to download music, there is always a chance of getting caught. This excuse is a horrible excuse as well
Yes - but when you aren't aware it's illegal, thats where the contraversy arises. No - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - you can't say "But I didn't know!". What creates a problem is the double standards - when it is perfectly fine for someone to create a duplicate copy of a song in one way without any consequence but doing it in a certain way ends in multiple thousands of dollars in lawsuits.
'My interest is peaked' (...) makes literal sense in English
Except that it doesn't, assuming these possible definitions (Ending in a peak, Having a sickly appearance, and Having a peak). It's syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless, because interest, as an abstract entity, has neither form nor appearance
Except that it would have some abstract value, because you can be mildly interested, quite interested, or very interested - who while you can't exactly measure it in units it can still be represented by abstract values (Like a spinal tap amp that goes up to 11).
Saying his interest has peaked can be infered to that his interest is at "it's peak" which the definition of peak is:
the pointed top of anything.
his interest is at its top possible value.
Could you have possibly put a little more thought into it before going on a rant about it?