First, tracking chemicals are not a trade secret, the recipe is a trade secret. So for example, when I bake and sell cookies, I have to list the ingredients, but not the recipe. Everyone knows what's in fracking fluid.
On the second point I agree, the state should take the larger share of the profit for allowing the process.
People are willingly giving information to Google, not the FBI. If I give someone my phone number, I know they're going to have it, store it, and possibly use it. I don't expect them to give it to anyone else who might ask for it.
But it's more than that. The FBI is making the argument that communication between citizens must be accessible to the government.
Then looking at images of dead bodies creates murderers. Anyone who views an image of a corpse should be tried as if they killed the person themselves. Right?
The problem with the article is it says something nonsensical. CO2 + algae = more algae + light + O2. This is exactly what all plants do, minus the light show. The article seems to suggest that CO2 turns into light. It doesn't work that way, outside of a star.
I think if someone made bomb threats from an IP address, the FBI would FULLY investigate, because jailing the wrong person means the bomb still goes off, where the RIAA doesn't care if they sue the wrong person.
Organic doesn't mean no pesticides, it means no artificial pesticides. However, artificial pesticides are used because they're more efficient, and more easily meet safety standards.
Also, "chemical" fertilizer is nonsensical jargon. Everything is a "chemical", and ALL fertilizer has the same 3 chemicals - potassium, phosphorous, and nitrogen.
Yeah but the change from CRT to LCD is a big reason it's not much higher. I remember mid 90s a decent video card could give you 1600x1200 on a CRT, and a great card even higher. LCDs came out and now had their own limitations, rather than *only* the limitations of the graphics card.
I have a 1920x1080 right now, but I'm sure if I hooked up to an old CRT I could go much higher. (I think anyway, there may be new limitations I'm not aware of.)
Why? If your life is that bad, maybe it's good advice to tell you to end it. No sense being in pain every day. If you have some ideology that every life should be extended as long as possible no matter what, that's fine, but not everyone shares it. Some people's lives suck, and it's theirs to end if they wish.
It's not exactly correct to say it's 10 years old, as if that's the last time they sold it. People buying new computers just a couple of years ago were given XP as their system. This isn't an argument for more support, just a fact.
They can amend the contract, however, you are allowed to not accept the new version. So for example you're one year into a 2 year contract with AT&T, and they change the terms. You are now free to walk away. Because of this they usually grandfather in people who are in existing contracts.
During the enlightenment, we had a period of about 100 years where Europe went from almost all monarchy to almost all democracy. How many of those were peaceful? Surely some of them.
Also, information works both ways. If you know your citizens are on the eve of mass riots, you might get radical changes before any actual violence begins.
The oligarchies of the world do a fair job of controlling media, but they can't control blogs or twitter. They need governments to make sure they can do this for them.
I think we're on the edge of a change in how modern democracies work. They can't continue on their current form. They never really did a good job of representing the people anyway, it's just that since the proliferation of the internet, everyone is much more aware of this fact.
ESPN is really one of the problem channels here. They are insanely expensive. Now, they're also insanely popular, but if you don't care about them, you're still paying.
Stuff like MTV2 and Encore-Western are not very popular at all, but they're also dirt cheap.
So it's not that unpopular channels will disappear. They're cheap enough that even casual fans might keep them on. It's that expensive channels will see an immediate dip in subscriptions, and they're the biggest ones who need the status quo to continue.
That would depend on the terms of service. If your broadband provider holds you responsible for the users you permit on to your connection, then a part of that responsibility would seem to be knowing who is using your connection and when.
The TOS with your provider have little to do with any legal liability you have when people use your connection. For example, if I signed a TOS with Hertz saying that no one else would drive the car I'm renting, but someone does, and uses it to mow down a pack of children, that contract with Hertz doesn't make me guilty of murder.
If the U.S. armed forces are capable of all that, why can't they beat 3000 farmers with little access to firearms and technology in Afghanistan?
It's not like dissenters will line up on a battlefield with the army and all take turns shooting each other. They'll be an insurgency. Your neighbors. People you work with. And they'll have easy access to guns and technology.
Sure, but the cable providers are the internet providers. If they're losing cable customers and gaining internet customers, guess what's going to get more expensive?
I could see basic internet services in the $100 a month range in 10-15 years.
What do you think people did before telephones when everyone in a town knew each other? You didn't wait until the girl/boy you liked sat next to you at a butter churnin', you went to their house and knocked on the door.
Nothing in either article suggests a link to GMO food, and there has never been a case of a consumer suffering a harmful effect that was linked to pesticide residue on produce.
Things won't change, not because of how big any company is, but because we can't just stop using pesticides unless you're comfortable with pretty much everyone you know dying of hunger.
Slashdot Mirror
First, tracking chemicals are not a trade secret, the recipe is a trade secret. So for example, when I bake and sell cookies, I have to list the ingredients, but not the recipe. Everyone knows what's in fracking fluid.
On the second point I agree, the state should take the larger share of the profit for allowing the process.
Death is avoidable. Some people are going to die today. Some are going to almost die, but successfully avoid it.
By contrast the WoW client is more than 20 GB.
People are willingly giving information to Google, not the FBI. If I give someone my phone number, I know they're going to have it, store it, and possibly use it. I don't expect them to give it to anyone else who might ask for it.
But it's more than that. The FBI is making the argument that communication between citizens must be accessible to the government.
Then looking at images of dead bodies creates murderers. Anyone who views an image of a corpse should be tried as if they killed the person themselves. Right?
I've never understood why drinking and driving is punished more harshly than similarly risky behaviors, such as using a cell phone while driving.
Paper ballots.
The problem with the article is it says something nonsensical. CO2 + algae = more algae + light + O2. This is exactly what all plants do, minus the light show. The article seems to suggest that CO2 turns into light. It doesn't work that way, outside of a star.
I think if someone made bomb threats from an IP address, the FBI would FULLY investigate, because jailing the wrong person means the bomb still goes off, where the RIAA doesn't care if they sue the wrong person.
Organic doesn't mean no pesticides, it means no artificial pesticides. However, artificial pesticides are used because they're more efficient, and more easily meet safety standards.
Also, "chemical" fertilizer is nonsensical jargon. Everything is a "chemical", and ALL fertilizer has the same 3 chemicals - potassium, phosphorous, and nitrogen.
Yeah but the change from CRT to LCD is a big reason it's not much higher. I remember mid 90s a decent video card could give you 1600x1200 on a CRT, and a great card even higher. LCDs came out and now had their own limitations, rather than *only* the limitations of the graphics card.
I have a 1920x1080 right now, but I'm sure if I hooked up to an old CRT I could go much higher. (I think anyway, there may be new limitations I'm not aware of.)
The people involved did a despicable thing.
Why? If your life is that bad, maybe it's good advice to tell you to end it. No sense being in pain every day. If you have some ideology that every life should be extended as long as possible no matter what, that's fine, but not everyone shares it. Some people's lives suck, and it's theirs to end if they wish.
It's not exactly correct to say it's 10 years old, as if that's the last time they sold it. People buying new computers just a couple of years ago were given XP as their system. This isn't an argument for more support, just a fact.
Apple is a bit of a different situation. 10.6 and 10.7 were both $30.
They can amend the contract, however, you are allowed to not accept the new version. So for example you're one year into a 2 year contract with AT&T, and they change the terms. You are now free to walk away. Because of this they usually grandfather in people who are in existing contracts.
During the enlightenment, we had a period of about 100 years where Europe went from almost all monarchy to almost all democracy. How many of those were peaceful? Surely some of them.
Also, information works both ways. If you know your citizens are on the eve of mass riots, you might get radical changes before any actual violence begins.
The oligarchies of the world do a fair job of controlling media, but they can't control blogs or twitter. They need governments to make sure they can do this for them.
I think we're on the edge of a change in how modern democracies work. They can't continue on their current form. They never really did a good job of representing the people anyway, it's just that since the proliferation of the internet, everyone is much more aware of this fact.
ESPN is really one of the problem channels here. They are insanely expensive. Now, they're also insanely popular, but if you don't care about them, you're still paying.
Stuff like MTV2 and Encore-Western are not very popular at all, but they're also dirt cheap.
So it's not that unpopular channels will disappear. They're cheap enough that even casual fans might keep them on. It's that expensive channels will see an immediate dip in subscriptions, and they're the biggest ones who need the status quo to continue.
That would depend on the terms of service. If your broadband provider holds you responsible for the users you permit on to your connection, then a part of that responsibility would seem to be knowing who is using your connection and when.
The TOS with your provider have little to do with any legal liability you have when people use your connection. For example, if I signed a TOS with Hertz saying that no one else would drive the car I'm renting, but someone does, and uses it to mow down a pack of children, that contract with Hertz doesn't make me guilty of murder.
If the U.S. armed forces are capable of all that, why can't they beat 3000 farmers with little access to firearms and technology in Afghanistan?
It's not like dissenters will line up on a battlefield with the army and all take turns shooting each other. They'll be an insurgency. Your neighbors. People you work with. And they'll have easy access to guns and technology.
As annoying as that prompt is, I find it kind of nice because it at the very least lets you know you're opening something for the first time.
Sure, but the cable providers are the internet providers. If they're losing cable customers and gaining internet customers, guess what's going to get more expensive?
I could see basic internet services in the $100 a month range in 10-15 years.
What do you think people did before telephones when everyone in a town knew each other? You didn't wait until the girl/boy you liked sat next to you at a butter churnin', you went to their house and knocked on the door.
Nothing in either article suggests a link to GMO food, and there has never been a case of a consumer suffering a harmful effect that was linked to pesticide residue on produce.
Things won't change, not because of how big any company is, but because we can't just stop using pesticides unless you're comfortable with pretty much everyone you know dying of hunger.