So who's more evil? A guy who posts on bulletin boards all day or a guy who threatens him for it? You're really not doing much to improve the image of your side.
I don't know how feasible this really is. Are they going to block encrypted and VPN traffic as well? Deep packet inspection to disallow the use of proxies? Denying access to DNS servers outside France?
They don't have to block everyone from accessing it. They just have to block enough so that the average person won't come across it. Then make anyone who circumvents the blocks a criminal. Normal upstanding citizens aren't going to believe a criminal over their own government.
It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough for government work.
My research shows World Public Opinion is sponsored by the Liberal-leaning, Socialist-loving University of Maryland (the state where 70% of the government is Democrat)(and ditto the professors).
So smart people whose job it is to know things, and know how to find things out, lean to the left. Isn't that interesting.
At the end of the day FOX is still watched by 4 times as many viewers as MSNBC - why? Because it is close to where most Middle Americans lie in their views
Quite right. Most Americans are ignorant and therefore gravitate to the least factual news source.
Most americans DON'T want government ordering them around like a Jew in 1935 Germany.
Most americans still support the War on Drug Users. So that is demonstrably false.
there's no meaningful result except to say that people go to the news source that agrees with their views
That IS a meaningful result. If Fox News is demonstrably less factual than MSNBC (it is), and people tend to watch news that confirms their beliefs, it follows that people on the right have less factual beliefs than those on the left.
If "leftist news channels" were "equally biased" with Fox News, wouldn't they make you less informed? This study shows that MSNBC, arguably the most leftist of the cable news networks, has the best informed viewers.
There are two ways I can see to explain this result. If this effect is causative (the news channel you watch causes you to be better or worse informed), then we must conclude that MSNBC is more factual (since their viewers know more facts). This would disprove your claim of equal bias.
On the other hand this could just be correlational. That is people watch what they agree with, and it just happens that more informed people prefer left-biased news. This would mean that leftists are more informed, and the right wing is more ignorant.
I don't see any way to spin this in favor of either Fox News or conservatism.
I'm sorry but saying that 'work' implies 'not having DRM' isn't valid.
But it is. DRM systems are defective by design.
saying that DRM makes it completely broken just makes you seem childish, like you always expect to get your way.
I do get my way. I can watch anything I want via bittorrent. Compared to how well bittorrent works, netflix is broken. If they want my money, they need to fix it.
You don't. You bust anyone who is even tangentially connected and charge them with whatever you can. You can't take them down from the top, since there is no top. You can only scare their recruits away.
Good for the fucking Greek. Government and Business screw up and leave the average person with the bill. Perhaps this is a good time for them to water the Tree of Liberty.
Netflix streaming works on PS3, Xbox, wii, mac, windows, iphone, ipad, a number of set-top TV boxes like the Roku and the WD ones, several TVs with integrated instant watch, and several Blu-Ray players.
Don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one. What I do have is a couple UNIX boxes that are completely capable of fetching data over a network and displaying it on screen. There's absolutely no reason I should have to buy another piece of hardware to do that.
Mistakes happen in war. Knowing that, and going to war anyway makes you responsible for those mistakes. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Wow, a sensible ruling on internet privacy. Why do I have a sneaking feeling that this judge has stock in the company that's going to be supplying all the rubber stamps these warrants will receive?
I do however support businesses who enforce drug testing and fire employees who are using drugs, not because I care how they are taking care of themselves, but because their work will suffer from the drug use and the employer will be adversely affected.
As an aside, you should consider whether this actually does what you think it does. If drug use leads to incompetence, then all you have to do is screen for incompetence. You'll be doing that as part of your hiring process anyway.
Given that you're not going to be hiring incompetent people anyway, drug testing only forces you to fire (or not hire) competent employees. This shrinks the available labor pool and causes you to spend more finding and retaining employees. This obviously harms the efficiency of the business.
In general, businesses are better off when they mind their own, and keep their noses out of others.
My original post was a tongue in cheek way of saying that I was outraged by the use of the commerce clause in Gonzalez v Raich.
Ah, I can see how it can be read that way. Apologies for missing the nuance.
Of course, your conclusion is a non sequitur. Your premise is that growing marijuana for personal use implies that the grower is a cancer patient.
No, my premise is that there exists at least one personal home grower of Cannabis who is treating his own cancer.
You then go on to conclude that anyone who wants to criminalize growing home marijuana is someone who wants to criminalize treatment of cancer. That simply fails all logical reasoning.
No, this is a simple logical conclusion.
1) There exists at least one cancer patient who needs to grow marijuana to treat his illness. (note: this is settled science) 2) Marijuana growers should be in jail. 3) Ergo, at least one cancer patient should go to jail for treating his illness. QED
So now you see that I've given a rational argument, that I have maintained a consistent stance, and that I'm still against the healthcare law. Do you still consider me "scum" that should be "up against the wall when the revolution comes"?
As you disagree with the abuse of the Commerce Clause in both cases, I can at least say you are not a hypocrite about this specific issue. But your obvious bigotry against Cannabis users does not speak well of you. However, I can tolerate bigotry as long as it doesn't devolve into outright persecution which is what we have today.
Anyone who can suggest with a straight face that it's somehow just, or appropriate in any way, to subject someone to assault and kidnapping (aka arrest and imprisonment) because they are having fun in a way you disapprove of has a very warped sense of justice. It's quite frankly barbaric. People who are able to go through the mental gymnastics to convince themselves that that is OK are dangerous.
I hope you are not that kind of person, I suspect not. These kind of people endanger everyone's liberties, as we can see here. The drug warriors pushed for the court to extend the scope of the commerce clause, and now it's coming back to bite us. Even those of us who don't use drugs are affected by the overreach of authority used (ostensibly) to fight drugs.
You do not have to like the Iraq War to know that we really were not lied into the war
I do not see how anyone could possibly believe we were not lied to in order to support the cause for war. Bush himself was quite careful not to speak outright falsehoods, but his half truths were bad enough. Further, his people told outright lies, this is documented. (e.g. aluminum tubes. Colin Powell was briefed that they were not part of a centrifuge before he went to tell Congress that they were.)
The ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were never explicitly stated as reasons
Why then did Bush & Co. bring it up? To mislead.
WMDs was given as a reason but just about every government (there were a lot of U.N. declarations stating that) in the world believed Iraq had them.
What other countries believe isn't evidence. Hans Blix had evidence and it was deliberately ignored. When you say that you know something with absolute certainty ("We know where they are" Rumsfeld) which turns out to be untrue, that's a lie.
to say we were lied into the Iraq War is disingenuous.
To say that the case for the Iraq war was made honestly is far more disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
So who's more evil? A guy who posts on bulletin boards all day or a guy who threatens him for it? You're really not doing much to improve the image of your side.
I don't know how feasible this really is. Are they going to block encrypted and VPN traffic as well? Deep packet inspection to disallow the use of proxies? Denying access to DNS servers outside France?
They don't have to block everyone from accessing it. They just have to block enough so that the average person won't come across it. Then make anyone who circumvents the blocks a criminal. Normal upstanding citizens aren't going to believe a criminal over their own government.
It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough for government work.
Nope, in the US the government merely forces private entities to provide health care to anyone whether they can pay for it or not.
My research shows World Public Opinion is sponsored by the Liberal-leaning, Socialist-loving University of Maryland (the state where 70% of the government is Democrat)(and ditto the professors).
So smart people whose job it is to know things, and know how to find things out, lean to the left. Isn't that interesting.
At the end of the day FOX is still watched by 4 times as many viewers as MSNBC - why? Because it is close to where most Middle Americans lie in their views
Quite right. Most Americans are ignorant and therefore gravitate to the least factual news source.
Most americans DON'T want government ordering them around like a Jew in 1935 Germany.
Most americans still support the War on Drug Users. So that is demonstrably false.
there's no meaningful result except to say that people go to the news source that agrees with their views
That IS a meaningful result. If Fox News is demonstrably less factual than MSNBC (it is), and people tend to watch news that confirms their beliefs, it follows that people on the right have less factual beliefs than those on the left.
If there's any show that really draws a constant audience of liberals to live broadcast, it's probably Stewart and Colbert.
Who, as it turns out, have the best informed audience of any "news" program.
If "leftist news channels" were "equally biased" with Fox News, wouldn't they make you less informed? This study shows that MSNBC, arguably the most leftist of the cable news networks, has the best informed viewers.
There are two ways I can see to explain this result. If this effect is causative (the news channel you watch causes you to be better or worse informed), then we must conclude that MSNBC is more factual (since their viewers know more facts). This would disprove your claim of equal bias.
On the other hand this could just be correlational. That is people watch what they agree with, and it just happens that more informed people prefer left-biased news. This would mean that leftists are more informed, and the right wing is more ignorant.
I don't see any way to spin this in favor of either Fox News or conservatism.
This also conveniently explains why Fox gets the highest ratings of any cable news network.
Exactly this. Kick out the deletionists and banish the concept of 'notability', and you're off to a good start.
I appear to have broken slashdot.
Slashdot has been broken for a very, very long time.
I'm sorry but saying that 'work' implies 'not having DRM' isn't valid.
But it is. DRM systems are defective by design.
saying that DRM makes it completely broken just makes you seem childish, like you always expect to get your way.
I do get my way. I can watch anything I want via bittorrent. Compared to how well bittorrent works, netflix is broken. If they want my money, they need to fix it.
You don't. You bust anyone who is even tangentially connected and charge them with whatever you can. You can't take them down from the top, since there is no top. You can only scare their recruits away.
Good for the fucking Greek. Government and Business screw up and leave the average person with the bill. Perhaps this is a good time for them to water the Tree of Liberty.
Netflix streaming works on PS3, Xbox, wii, mac, windows, iphone, ipad, a number of set-top TV boxes like the Roku and the WD ones, several TVs with integrated instant watch, and several Blu-Ray players.
Don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one, don't have one. What I do have is a couple UNIX boxes that are completely capable of fetching data over a network and displaying it on screen. There's absolutely no reason I should have to buy another piece of hardware to do that.
FWIW, BitTorrent works on any platform.
It doesn't have to be a crime to cause the chilling effects the authorities are looking for.
Doesn't the Ninth Circuit decision stand as precedent within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction?
Depends. Is television the content or the delivery method?
GoldenEye on N64 really was the first great multiplayer game.
M.U.L.E. -- 1983
Man it would be great if these sites would make it into an archive and onto a torrent tracker somewhere.
Mistakes happen in war. Knowing that, and going to war anyway makes you responsible for those mistakes. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There food is horrible
Did you misspell "their" or just drop a comma? Either way it makes sense!
it tastes like a charred hamster
Where do you get charred hamster? I can't even get cuy around here.
Wow, a sensible ruling on internet privacy. Why do I have a sneaking feeling that this judge has stock in the company that's going to be supplying all the rubber stamps these warrants will receive?
I do however support businesses who enforce drug testing and fire employees who are using drugs, not because I care how they are taking care of themselves, but because their work will suffer from the drug use and the employer will be adversely affected.
As an aside, you should consider whether this actually does what you think it does. If drug use leads to incompetence, then all you have to do is screen for incompetence. You'll be doing that as part of your hiring process anyway.
Given that you're not going to be hiring incompetent people anyway, drug testing only forces you to fire (or not hire) competent employees. This shrinks the available labor pool and causes you to spend more finding and retaining employees. This obviously harms the efficiency of the business.
In general, businesses are better off when they mind their own, and keep their noses out of others.
My original post was a tongue in cheek way of saying that I was outraged by the use of the commerce clause in Gonzalez v Raich.
Ah, I can see how it can be read that way. Apologies for missing the nuance.
Of course, your conclusion is a non sequitur. Your premise is that growing marijuana for personal use implies that the grower is a cancer patient.
No, my premise is that there exists at least one personal home grower of Cannabis who is treating his own cancer.
You then go on to conclude that anyone who wants to criminalize growing home marijuana is someone who wants to criminalize treatment of cancer. That simply fails all logical reasoning.
No, this is a simple logical conclusion.
1) There exists at least one cancer patient who needs to grow marijuana to treat his illness.
(note: this is settled science)
2) Marijuana growers should be in jail.
3) Ergo, at least one cancer patient should go to jail for treating his illness.
QED
So now you see that I've given a rational argument, that I have maintained a consistent stance, and that I'm still against the healthcare law. Do you still consider me "scum" that should be "up against the wall when the revolution comes"?
As you disagree with the abuse of the Commerce Clause in both cases, I can at least say you are not a hypocrite about this specific issue. But your obvious bigotry against Cannabis users does not speak well of you. However, I can tolerate bigotry as long as it doesn't devolve into outright persecution which is what we have today.
Anyone who can suggest with a straight face that it's somehow just, or appropriate in any way, to subject someone to assault and kidnapping (aka arrest and imprisonment) because they are having fun in a way you disapprove of has a very warped sense of justice. It's quite frankly barbaric. People who are able to go through the mental gymnastics to convince themselves that that is OK are dangerous.
I hope you are not that kind of person, I suspect not. These kind of people endanger everyone's liberties, as we can see here. The drug warriors pushed for the court to extend the scope of the commerce clause, and now it's coming back to bite us. Even those of us who don't use drugs are affected by the overreach of authority used (ostensibly) to fight drugs.
You do not have to like the Iraq War to know that we really were not lied into the war
I do not see how anyone could possibly believe we were not lied to in order to support the cause for war. Bush himself was quite careful not to speak outright falsehoods, but his half truths were bad enough. Further, his people told outright lies, this is documented. (e.g. aluminum tubes. Colin Powell was briefed that they were not part of a centrifuge before he went to tell Congress that they were.)
The ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were never explicitly stated as reasons
Why then did Bush & Co. bring it up? To mislead.
WMDs was given as a reason but just about every government (there were a lot of U.N. declarations stating that) in the world believed Iraq had them.
What other countries believe isn't evidence. Hans Blix had evidence and it was deliberately ignored. When you say that you know something with absolute certainty ("We know where they are" Rumsfeld) which turns out to be untrue, that's a lie.
to say we were lied into the Iraq War is disingenuous.
To say that the case for the Iraq war was made honestly is far more disingenuous.