It's 2.2 petabytes per gram, but only if you don't mind that it contains a billion copies of the same 2.2 megabytes. Making lots of copies of a short DNA sequence is easy. Making a whole gram of unique DNA sequences is much, much harder. What's the non-redundant storage density of this process?
I was short on time earlier so I'll elaborate. They will listen to your complaints. They might even address them during the primaries. But those promises will be lies. They will say whatever they want to you in order to get your vote in the primary. Then they will say whatever they want to the rest of the country in order to win the general election. Once in office, they will rule any way they damn well please.
And if you have a problem with it, what are you going to do? Vote Republican? Obviously not. Vote for a different Democrat in the primary? That Democrat will lie to you too.
The only option is to vote for a third party, which is the same thing I'm advocating. You're just wasting a bunch of time before you make the realization that I'm right. If you're not willing to vote for another party, they have absolutely no reason to consider your opinion. Unless you have more money than Hollywood, that is.
Deal with it. We do not have a democracy, we have democracy theatre.
Haha, good luck with that. You'll either wash out when you realize they're only using you, or you'll sell out in order to not believe you wasted so much of your time.
Excuses, excuses. The fact is 35 years for what Swartz did is absolutely unconscionable. Whatever legalistic reasons you can come up with for the charge of 35 years is simply proof that our legal system is unjust. This is not how a justice system works, this is how a justice system fails.
There was never any serious question about Swartz commiting the crimes he was charged with (video tape of him doing it, his fingerprints on the HD inside the laptop, etc.),
There is absolutely reasonable doubt that the actions Swartz took were against the law. There is no doubt that he placed a laptop in a utility closet in MIT and downloaded articles for redistribution. But whether that was against the law is for a jury to decide. Note that no security, physical or electronic, was ever broken.
honestly a 6 month sentece would have been about right.
If a 6 months sentence was appropriate, he should gotten a jury trial on that 6 months charge. But if he wanted to exercise his right to a trial, he'd be hit with 35 years. Do you not see the problem with that? Plea bargaining is plainly unjust.
In the mean-time I'll have more ability to get good policies considered as a party activist then I would as a guy who votes every two years for doomed candidates
Why would Democrats work for good policy that pleases you if you're going to vote for them either way? The only way to get them to listen is to jeopardize their ability to win elections. The only way to do that is to vote for someone else. Voting for either major party is throwing your vote away.
The pro with my strategy is that it offers an actual solution to the problem, the con is that it (at best) takes forever.
A solution that takes forever is no solution at all. Turing could have told you that.
you might as well get rid of the entire concept of Separation of Powers. In policy terms it just doesn't seem to be very useful. In the early 19th it was useful for keeping Jackson from establishing a dictatorship, but in the context of modern diversified economies it just seems like a recipe for arguing about stupid shit.
Separation of powers doesn't seem useful now, because we are effectively a dictatorship. The arguing about stupid shit is to keep us distracted from that fact. There's less actual diversity of opinion between the two major US parties than there was in the old USSR Communist party. The Republican aide who wrote a white paper in favor of copyright reform lost his job, and R isn't even the party that's owned by Hollywood for fucks sake.
And that was his job! He was being paid to identify issues the Republicans could use to differentiate themselves from the Democrats, and win the hearts and minds of the undecided and disaffected. He found one, and lost his job for it. And you're going to try the same thing in the party of copyright maximalists? Get real.
Please explain to me in what ways Ron Paul favors the government telling businesses how they should operate (that is what fascism is)?
No, fascism is the other way around. When businesses tell the government how they should operate. It is the merger of state and corporate power. In other words, very much like the United States.
Which is just a long winded way of saying there are no candidates for people who care about good policy. If you care about good policy, you can't vote for either Democrats or Republicans, because they won't implement good policy. You can't vote third party, because they can't implement good policy.
The only conclusion is that our system is well and truly broken and must be scrapped. If you care about good policy, fixing the electoral system is the only thing that matters. And that won't happen for as long as D & R monopolize politics in this country.
So if you care about good policy, who are you going to vote for? Is voting for a D or R going to bring about electoral reform? You and I both know that it won't. But voting third party might. Therefore voting third party is the only responsible choice for people who care about good policy.
So It's not that the ISP is building out infastructure, the ISP is having to spend money to provide a better experience for Netflix.
The ISP is spending money providing a better experience for its users. That's a good thing. Anyone who watches an HD video from my ISPs caching proxy doesn't have to download it over the pipe to the public internet. Without a cache you'd be looking at 10Gb/s to Netflix instead of 5Gb/s. I clearly benefit from that cache existing.
Netflix is encouraging my ISP to build out infrastructure, and I'm supposed to be upset that I have to pay for it? More bandwidth is good for everyone, and can be used for anything, not just Netflix. This is unequivocally good.
You can already get all this stuff for free. Refusing to offer a legit, paid download has no appreciable positive or negative effect on illegitimate downloads. It does have a direct negative effect on legit, paid downloads.
The books are going to be scanned and shared whether they post PDFs or not. The only question is whether there's a legit option for those who want to pay.
No, there's no hard choice. Neither major party has the best ideas or most tenable solutions to any of our problems. Any support for either is supporting the continuation of our anti-democratic system. Whether Republicans win or Democrats win in 2014 or 2016 is irrelevant. The only question that matters is when we fix our electoral system.
Grand juries are a rubber stamp, not a safeguard. Federal grand jury indictment rates exceed 99%.
Jury nullification isn't a real safeguard either. If you mention it, you get pulled from the jury, and probably held in contempt of court.
Neither are elected judges. The only people who really know whether a judge is unfair are those who stand before the judge. That's always a tiny minority of the electorate, with no ability to affect the outcome of an election.
So in reality, the US justice system has very few safeguards against malicious prosecution. And we see the results of that in our mass incarceration society. There's nothing to "be happy" about with respect to our justice system. It is outright terrible through and through.
Love thy neighbor is a great example. How many self-identified christians actually love their neighbors as themselves? Precious few.
Only those who want to love their neighbors will read that passage and actually understand what it means. Those who wish to righteously hate their neighbors will gloss over that passage, and focus on e.g. Leviticus.
You couldn't have picked a better example to prove me right. Religious texts mean what the believer wants it to mean, like a Rorchach test.
If they can throw Phelps in jail for speech, they can throw you in jail for speech. Criminalizing Phelps is a complete non-starter in any free country.
No, but who is actually the greatest danger to a secular society?
When a judge wants to post the 10 commandments in a coutroom, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When a principal wants to keep a homosexual student from attending prom, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When the leaders of the Catholic Church in this country seek to withhold birth control from secular employees, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When I can't buy alcohol on Sunday before noon, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When teenage mothers go on the dole because they weren't educated about birth control, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
The WBC is repugnant, but it's a side show. They have no power. The real danger to secular people in the US comes from "moderate" christians.
Even if what you said were entirely true, what you are describing is "vigilantism". In the movies this is great. In the real world you end up with a might makes right society.
We already live in a 'might makes right' society. Blame the justice system for not actually providing justice.
Religion is a personal choice. The minute their choice starts to impact others, they need to be warned. If they fail to heed the warning, put them in a cell.
Like any religion, the holy book says exactly what the believer wishes it said. And if it says something different, it's an allegory meaning what the believer wishes it said.
Slashdot Mirror
It's 2.2 petabytes per gram, but only if you don't mind that it contains a billion copies of the same 2.2 megabytes. Making lots of copies of a short DNA sequence is easy. Making a whole gram of unique DNA sequences is much, much harder. What's the non-redundant storage density of this process?
I was short on time earlier so I'll elaborate. They will listen to your complaints. They might even address them during the primaries. But those promises will be lies. They will say whatever they want to you in order to get your vote in the primary. Then they will say whatever they want to the rest of the country in order to win the general election. Once in office, they will rule any way they damn well please.
And if you have a problem with it, what are you going to do? Vote Republican? Obviously not. Vote for a different Democrat in the primary? That Democrat will lie to you too.
The only option is to vote for a third party, which is the same thing I'm advocating. You're just wasting a bunch of time before you make the realization that I'm right. If you're not willing to vote for another party, they have absolutely no reason to consider your opinion. Unless you have more money than Hollywood, that is.
Deal with it. We do not have a democracy, we have democracy theatre.
Haha, good luck with that. You'll either wash out when you realize they're only using you, or you'll sell out in order to not believe you wasted so much of your time.
Excuses, excuses. The fact is 35 years for what Swartz did is absolutely unconscionable. Whatever legalistic reasons you can come up with for the charge of 35 years is simply proof that our legal system is unjust. This is not how a justice system works, this is how a justice system fails.
There was never any serious question about Swartz commiting the crimes he was charged with (video tape of him doing it, his fingerprints on the HD inside the laptop, etc.),
There is absolutely reasonable doubt that the actions Swartz took were against the law. There is no doubt that he placed a laptop in a utility closet in MIT and downloaded articles for redistribution. But whether that was against the law is for a jury to decide. Note that no security, physical or electronic, was ever broken.
honestly a 6 month sentece would have been about right.
If a 6 months sentence was appropriate, he should gotten a jury trial on that 6 months charge. But if he wanted to exercise his right to a trial, he'd be hit with 35 years. Do you not see the problem with that? Plea bargaining is plainly unjust.
In the mean-time I'll have more ability to get good policies considered as a party activist then I would as a guy who votes every two years for doomed candidates
Why would Democrats work for good policy that pleases you if you're going to vote for them either way? The only way to get them to listen is to jeopardize their ability to win elections. The only way to do that is to vote for someone else. Voting for either major party is throwing your vote away.
The pro with my strategy is that it offers an actual solution to the problem, the con is that it (at best) takes forever.
A solution that takes forever is no solution at all. Turing could have told you that.
you might as well get rid of the entire concept of Separation of Powers. In policy terms it just doesn't seem to be very useful. In the early 19th it was useful for keeping Jackson from establishing a dictatorship, but in the context of modern diversified economies it just seems like a recipe for arguing about stupid shit.
Separation of powers doesn't seem useful now, because we are effectively a dictatorship. The arguing about stupid shit is to keep us distracted from that fact. There's less actual diversity of opinion between the two major US parties than there was in the old USSR Communist party. The Republican aide who wrote a white paper in favor of copyright reform lost his job, and R isn't even the party that's owned by Hollywood for fucks sake.
And that was his job! He was being paid to identify issues the Republicans could use to differentiate themselves from the Democrats, and win the hearts and minds of the undecided and disaffected. He found one, and lost his job for it. And you're going to try the same thing in the party of copyright maximalists? Get real.
Please explain to me in what ways Ron Paul favors the government telling businesses how they should operate (that is what fascism is)?
No, fascism is the other way around. When businesses tell the government how they should operate. It is the merger of state and corporate power. In other words, very much like the United States.
Which is just a long winded way of saying there are no candidates for people who care about good policy. If you care about good policy, you can't vote for either Democrats or Republicans, because they won't implement good policy. You can't vote third party, because they can't implement good policy.
The only conclusion is that our system is well and truly broken and must be scrapped. If you care about good policy, fixing the electoral system is the only thing that matters. And that won't happen for as long as D & R monopolize politics in this country.
So if you care about good policy, who are you going to vote for? Is voting for a D or R going to bring about electoral reform? You and I both know that it won't. But voting third party might. Therefore voting third party is the only responsible choice for people who care about good policy.
So It's not that the ISP is building out infastructure, the ISP is having to spend money to provide a better experience for Netflix.
The ISP is spending money providing a better experience for its users. That's a good thing. Anyone who watches an HD video from my ISPs caching proxy doesn't have to download it over the pipe to the public internet. Without a cache you'd be looking at 10Gb/s to Netflix instead of 5Gb/s. I clearly benefit from that cache existing.
Netflix is encouraging my ISP to build out infrastructure, and I'm supposed to be upset that I have to pay for it? More bandwidth is good for everyone, and can be used for anything, not just Netflix. This is unequivocally good.
You can already get all this stuff for free. Refusing to offer a legit, paid download has no appreciable positive or negative effect on illegitimate downloads. It does have a direct negative effect on legit, paid downloads.
Because they're in The Cloud.
How about we hang both Democrats AND Republicans who gerrymander? That's only fair.
The books are going to be scanned and shared whether they post PDFs or not. The only question is whether there's a legit option for those who want to pay.
Gary Johnson cares about the profits of the private prison industry more than he does the people of New Mexico.
Yup... it still a hard choice, though.
No, there's no hard choice. Neither major party has the best ideas or most tenable solutions to any of our problems. Any support for either is supporting the continuation of our anti-democratic system. Whether Republicans win or Democrats win in 2014 or 2016 is irrelevant. The only question that matters is when we fix our electoral system.
Because they don't care about good policy, they care about their team winning.
Grand juries are a rubber stamp, not a safeguard. Federal grand jury indictment rates exceed 99%.
Jury nullification isn't a real safeguard either. If you mention it, you get pulled from the jury, and probably held in contempt of court.
Neither are elected judges. The only people who really know whether a judge is unfair are those who stand before the judge. That's always a tiny minority of the electorate, with no ability to affect the outcome of an election.
So in reality, the US justice system has very few safeguards against malicious prosecution. And we see the results of that in our mass incarceration society. There's nothing to "be happy" about with respect to our justice system. It is outright terrible through and through.
Love thy neighbor is a great example. How many self-identified christians actually love their neighbors as themselves? Precious few.
Only those who want to love their neighbors will read that passage and actually understand what it means. Those who wish to righteously hate their neighbors will gloss over that passage, and focus on e.g. Leviticus.
You couldn't have picked a better example to prove me right. Religious texts mean what the believer wants it to mean, like a Rorchach test.
If they can throw Phelps in jail for speech, they can throw you in jail for speech. Criminalizing Phelps is a complete non-starter in any free country.
Are all Christians the same as Westboro Baptist?
No, but who is actually the greatest danger to a secular society?
When a judge wants to post the 10 commandments in a coutroom, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When a principal wants to keep a homosexual student from attending prom, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When the leaders of the Catholic Church in this country seek to withhold birth control from secular employees, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When I can't buy alcohol on Sunday before noon, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
When teenage mothers go on the dole because they weren't educated about birth control, who is behind that? Mainstream christians or the WBC?
The WBC is repugnant, but it's a side show. They have no power. The real danger to secular people in the US comes from "moderate" christians.
Even if what you said were entirely true, what you are describing is "vigilantism". In the movies this is great. In the real world you end up with a might makes right society.
We already live in a 'might makes right' society. Blame the justice system for not actually providing justice.
Religion is a personal choice. The minute their choice starts to impact others, they need to be warned. If they fail to heed the warning, put them in a cell.
I agree, but Evangelicals are beside the point.
If you have a 64 bit PC and OS, it should be little more than a recompile. This is why it's important to have the source.
Like any religion, the holy book says exactly what the believer wishes it said. And if it says something different, it's an allegory meaning what the believer wishes it said.