Why don't we ditch the class and race warfare that the Liberal (Marxist?) crowd loves to push out and about? It's not valid. It accomplishes nothing.
Capitalism IS class warfare. I'd love to ditch it. As long as there are classes, there will be class warfare. The only way to end class warfare is to create a classless society. Therefore, when you advocate for the end of class warfare, you are advocating for Marxism.
Funny, if it's so obvious, then why don't they realize it already?
Because they've been deliberately mislead by the media, lobbyists, and politicians. People will fall for the Big Lie, if you get the right people to repeat it enough.
The reality is that there is vehement disagreement about high taxes, social programs, and union precisely because it is not clear whether they are positive or negative.
No, it's perfectly clear who benefits. The reason there is vehement disagreement about it, is because powerful people stand to benefit by obscuring the facts.
Consider for instance Cannabis prohibition. It's been abundantly clear for decades that Cannabis is a safe substance. Even a study commissioned by Nixon recommended decriminalization. There is not, nor has there ever been, a genuine fact based argument in favor of Cannabis prohibition. 40 years later, we are still fighting the war on drugs. Why? Because those in power have profited off of it.
This is a pattern that occurs again, and again throughout history. Smart, powerful people make disingenuous arguments to confuse and frighten the public into supporting causes that run counter to their interests.
The American propaganda system is the best in the world.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone, individual or company receiving bits that have been transmitted in the clear. I'm no Google fanboy. I don't use Chrome, I don't use Gmail, I don't run their scripts in my browser. I don't like being tracked. If you're dumb enough to transmit bits in the clear, you deserve whatever you get.
Why should they know better? They did nothing illegal. Some bureaucrats thought they could get brownie points by bullying Google. Google didn't have anything to win by fighting, so they rolled over. None of this means there was any wrongdoing on Google's part. At worst, they were impolite.
There is a separate copy of each song stored on the cloud drive for each user
How do you know it's not just a hard link, or that it isn't otherwise abstracted on the back end? Why should it matter from a legal perspective?
The law needs to come to terms with the fact that bits are fungible. There is no meaningful difference between one string of bits that's been accessed 1000 times and 1000 copies of the same string of bits that have been accessed one time each.
On the other hand, it's about the only gimmick the theaters have left. So the value add to the theaters is quite large. Avatar and Tron got me into the theater for the first time since the Spongebob Squarepants movie (2004). While 3d adds little to a movie (neither Tron nor Avatar were very good), it's the only thing differentiating the experience in a theater from what you can get at home. You can expect 3D to be around for a while for that reason.
Oh right. It was privoxy last time I tried Tor, but whatever. Don't see how much that will really help, since the caching proxy can't know what you're going to want to see in the future. The first time you access any resource will be as slow as plain Tor.
If you're going through a proxy server to get to Tor, the proxy server knows your IP and everything you've browsed. This defeats the purpose of using Tor.
No, we don't all have the same values. The people who want censorware are attempting to push their values on others. They have no non-hypocritical recourse if the freer among us attempt to push our values on them.
If you really accept the fact that different people have different values, then you can't support censorship at all as you'd have to choose one value system as privileged.
I would suggest that the primary concern is that the UAVs transceiver can be reverse engineered for the frequency range/channelization and then create a device that would allow for easy end-user jamming.
Can't they tell what channel the UAV is listening on by listening for what channel HQ is broadcasting on? Kind of hard to keep that a secret.
If these companies were in the business of acting ethically, they wouldn't be in the censorware business at all. Once they start screening their clients for acceptable use of their product, where do they stop? Should censorware companies be restricted from dealing with foreign governments? Or just totalitarian foreign governments? What if the totalitarian government in question is a US ally? What if France or Germany wants a censorship application to block Nazi stuff? Is that so different from Iran wanting to block other content for political reasons?
The only consistent position is that all censorware is unethical and should not be sold at all.
I think the problem isn't development on the Mac, but testing on the Mac. Code can be written anywhere, this is why we have nifty things like cross-compilers. You just have to test it on the target platform.
the attorney explained that the system in question was purchased at a GameStop near Hotz' residence... If they had a copy of a GameStop receipt tying that serial number to Hotz, the company would have included it with the rest of the evidence.
How did Sony gain access to GameStop or Hotz' credit card records?
Or the readership goes down, as causal users encounter an obstacle and just browse to another site. Interested users, ones who actually might pay, just see how easy it is to bypass the wall and so have no incentive to pay. It's the worst of both worlds.
As I've linked above, Obama has kept far more promises than he's broken
That's the most depressing part of all. Obama can keep most of his campaign promises and STILL have a negligible effect on the course of the country. The take home message from this is: It doesn't matter who you vote for. It doesn't matter what they promise. The rich will keep getting richer, and the poor will keep getting poorer. The justice system will continue to favor the rich and powerful, and your representatives will continue to advance interests other than your own.
Congress has forbidden Obama from releasing Guantanimo detainees in the US
Good thing Guantanamo isn't in the US. Nothing stopping us from saying "Fuck it, they're Castro's problem now."
Small donations from individuals are so rare that it's actually historically relevant that Barak Obama received fully half his 2008 campaign money from small donors, making him one of the first presidents in recent memory actually bought and paid for, at least halfway, by the people. This explains why he has to date kept more than three times the number of campaign promises than he's broken (though he would have been able to keep more of them if Congress didn't, for example, block funding for the closing of Guantanimo) which for an American politician is shockingly true to his word.
Amazing how all that isn't enough to make any sort of significant difference. Obama campaigned on hope and change, but he just ended up proving how broken American politics are.
And, concerning Guantanamo, it doesn't cost anything to just unlock the doors and shut off the lights.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't we ditch the class and race warfare that the Liberal (Marxist?) crowd loves to push out and about? It's not valid. It accomplishes nothing.
Capitalism IS class warfare. I'd love to ditch it. As long as there are classes, there will be class warfare. The only way to end class warfare is to create a classless society. Therefore, when you advocate for the end of class warfare, you are advocating for Marxism.
Funny, if it's so obvious, then why don't they realize it already?
Because they've been deliberately mislead by the media, lobbyists, and politicians. People will fall for the Big Lie, if you get the right people to repeat it enough.
The reality is that there is vehement disagreement about high taxes, social programs, and union precisely because it is not clear whether they are positive or negative.
No, it's perfectly clear who benefits. The reason there is vehement disagreement about it, is because powerful people stand to benefit by obscuring the facts.
Consider for instance Cannabis prohibition. It's been abundantly clear for decades that Cannabis is a safe substance. Even a study commissioned by Nixon recommended decriminalization. There is not, nor has there ever been, a genuine fact based argument in favor of Cannabis prohibition. 40 years later, we are still fighting the war on drugs. Why? Because those in power have profited off of it.
This is a pattern that occurs again, and again throughout history. Smart, powerful people make disingenuous arguments to confuse and frighten the public into supporting causes that run counter to their interests.
The American propaganda system is the best in the world.
Good point! Taking care of the less fortunate is totally anti-American.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone, individual or company receiving bits that have been transmitted in the clear. I'm no Google fanboy. I don't use Chrome, I don't use Gmail, I don't run their scripts in my browser. I don't like being tracked. If you're dumb enough to transmit bits in the clear, you deserve whatever you get.
Why should they know better? They did nothing illegal. Some bureaucrats thought they could get brownie points by bullying Google. Google didn't have anything to win by fighting, so they rolled over. None of this means there was any wrongdoing on Google's part. At worst, they were impolite.
Decades in the making, and all he can complete is Volume 4A part 1. How long for part 2? Will we ever see 4B?
There is a separate copy of each song stored on the cloud drive for each user
How do you know it's not just a hard link, or that it isn't otherwise abstracted on the back end? Why should it matter from a legal perspective?
The law needs to come to terms with the fact that bits are fungible. There is no meaningful difference between one string of bits that's been accessed 1000 times and 1000 copies of the same string of bits that have been accessed one time each.
You can trivially convert the 3D effect of the real world to 2D by closing one eye. Does that mean the real world is not really 3d?
On the other hand, it's about the only gimmick the theaters have left. So the value add to the theaters is quite large. Avatar and Tron got me into the theater for the first time since the Spongebob Squarepants movie (2004). While 3d adds little to a movie (neither Tron nor Avatar were very good), it's the only thing differentiating the experience in a theater from what you can get at home. You can expect 3D to be around for a while for that reason.
Oh right. It was privoxy last time I tried Tor, but whatever. Don't see how much that will really help, since the caching proxy can't know what you're going to want to see in the future. The first time you access any resource will be as slow as plain Tor.
Sure, fission is on going, in the sense that radioactive material tends to decay spontaneously. What's not going on is a sustainable chain reaction.
If you're going through a proxy server to get to Tor, the proxy server knows your IP and everything you've browsed. This defeats the purpose of using Tor.
No, we don't all have the same values. The people who want censorware are attempting to push their values on others. They have no non-hypocritical recourse if the freer among us attempt to push our values on them.
If you really accept the fact that different people have different values, then you can't support censorship at all as you'd have to choose one value system as privileged.
I would suggest that the primary concern is that the UAVs transceiver can be reverse engineered for the frequency range/channelization and then create a device that would allow for easy end-user jamming.
Can't they tell what channel the UAV is listening on by listening for what channel HQ is broadcasting on? Kind of hard to keep that a secret.
Why would losing the drone compromise the secure communications channel? The drone should have a unique private key, as should HQ.
If these companies were in the business of acting ethically, they wouldn't be in the censorware business at all. Once they start screening their clients for acceptable use of their product, where do they stop? Should censorware companies be restricted from dealing with foreign governments? Or just totalitarian foreign governments? What if the totalitarian government in question is a US ally? What if France or Germany wants a censorship application to block Nazi stuff? Is that so different from Iran wanting to block other content for political reasons?
The only consistent position is that all censorware is unethical and should not be sold at all.
Do Saudi's want a filtered internet, or are they just scared to publicly ask for an unfiltered internet?
Don't worry, Ultima IV will always be readily available on the internet. I can assure you that.
I think the problem isn't development on the Mac, but testing on the Mac. Code can be written anywhere, this is why we have nifty things like cross-compilers. You just have to test it on the target platform.
Discovery.
Or the readership goes down, as causal users encounter an obstacle and just browse to another site. Interested users, ones who actually might pay, just see how easy it is to bypass the wall and so have no incentive to pay. It's the worst of both worlds.
As I've linked above, Obama has kept far more promises than he's broken
That's the most depressing part of all. Obama can keep most of his campaign promises and STILL have a negligible effect on the course of the country. The take home message from this is: It doesn't matter who you vote for. It doesn't matter what they promise. The rich will keep getting richer, and the poor will keep getting poorer. The justice system will continue to favor the rich and powerful, and your representatives will continue to advance interests other than your own.
Congress has forbidden Obama from releasing Guantanimo detainees in the US
Good thing Guantanamo isn't in the US. Nothing stopping us from saying "Fuck it, they're Castro's problem now."
Small donations from individuals are so rare that it's actually historically relevant that Barak Obama received fully half his 2008 campaign money from small donors, making him one of the first presidents in recent memory actually bought and paid for, at least halfway, by the people. This explains why he has to date kept more than three times the number of campaign promises than he's broken (though he would have been able to keep more of them if Congress didn't, for example, block funding for the closing of Guantanimo) which for an American politician is shockingly true to his word.
Amazing how all that isn't enough to make any sort of significant difference. Obama campaigned on hope and change, but he just ended up proving how broken American politics are.
And, concerning Guantanamo, it doesn't cost anything to just unlock the doors and shut off the lights.
He's bat shit crazy. It's easy enough to mistake that for being a Republican.
I don't like the Daily Mail any more than you do, but this particular article had no ZOMG FOREIGNERS content, so I didn't mind.
They can only cry wolf so many times before they well and truly deserve to be ignored.