I watched some of P.S. videos on youtube and he is just a right wing economist, the same idiotic claims: lower taxes, decrease government, etc. pp.
That he was right about the crisis, so big deal. I would think all people knew about that crisis was comming, the bankers, the traders, the politicians. If you really want to know what happened in the decade before the crisis, I would suggest you to watch some videos from William K. Black, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1b__MdtHY
Who will take then TEPCO into account if any incidents would happen? Also, regulations and inspections are in place to prevent any incidents to happen in the first place.
Correction: What happened here would be a death sentence for TEPCO, but becuase of *bad* government involvement, TEPCO will survive its mistakes.
Corruption is on both sides, and if the government corrupt in a democracy it's the fault of it's citizens. The Japanese people have elected their government, so why are the Japanese not taking their government into account for their mistakes?
If you go to their page they say you can use "Both MicroSD and MicroSD High Capacity cards are supported. ". So you have way more then just 28K flash. I don't really know why you need a "32-bit embedded processor with integrated FPU" for something like the iPod. From the video and from the pictures the microtouch seems very capable.
Isn't it "evil" if a company lobby congress (or other law makers in other countries) to implement software patents? Is that then the same that "they can't act different"?
Or is the congress (or other politicians) the evil ones, who listen to such selfish lobbying?
I think both are to blame and both are "evil". And the people are too lazy or to stupid and let it happened. I'm really exciting to see Occupy Wall Street and similar protests in Greece and Italy. Because that is the only way to change things.
That's a serious question, why you replace 45 perfectly good working cameras with new cameras? If they were broken, then you wouldn't ask what do to with them. It's not like the quality of web-cameras matters, or that the cameras get worse with time. That's like you decide to throw away 2000$ for no reason at all.
I don't really get it why they invest millions in CCTV cameras, face recognitions, and now in tracking of mobile phones. I'm pretty sure it is not to get more customers to the most shopping centres.
Because if they wanted more customers, all they have to do is a) extend the opening time to up 10pm (I was in Sydney and it was a real surprise to me that most shopping centres close at 8pm or earlier. If you work up until 5pm, then you have 3 hours max. for the mall. Or like me who study until 4:30pm, then go home, it's 6pm, then go to mall it's 6:30pm, then you have 1,5 hour in the mall. So the big buildings for the shopping malls are mostly empty the whole day). And b) drop the prices.
That's why/.'s rating system is for the ass. Why his score is 1 and not +5? Anyway, even if you do not read the signals from the phone, it is intercepting anyway. You have to receive the signals from the phone somehow to get the position, so it is intercepting. There is also a definition of all terms used.
"communication" includes conversation and a message, and any part of a conversation or message, whether:
(a) in the form of: (i) speech, music or other sounds;(ii) data;(iii) text;(iv) visual images, whether or not animated; or (v) signals; or (b) in any other form or in any combination of forms.
So just a signal is a communication passing over a telecommunications system as defined by law. It is not necessary that the signal is decoded.
Are you for real? My Eclipse uses 76MByes of RAM. Please read with me: 76 Megabytes RAM. Seventy six. And I have a bunch of plugins, like Groovy, Maven, etc. What I did was start up Eclipse and run a few tests in JUnit.
Also you picked your application somewhat wrong. Eclipse is not a text editor, it's a full blown IDE, like VisualStudio. How much does VisualStudio uses, and it's written in C++. Also Eclipse uses SWT not Swing; SWT uses the native widgets of the system, and Swing is drawing it's own widgets.
Of course it make sense, since almost all works belong to some publisher. A company can "live" for 50 or 100 years or more. Then it's quite different:
1. Masterpiece, ton of money in first 5 years, more money with the "long tail" in following years - or no money, then it's in some safe or storage room and after the dead of the author it's like described earlier. The more the copyright term the better, to get the "long tail" profits, and exclusion of competition (think of the Beatles, Mickey Mouse, etc).
A long copyright term makes only sense if we talk about the publishers.
and there were some people who thought a "pirate party" is crazy and nobody will vote for them. The old saying is always true "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Well, for the Green Party they skipped the 3rd step.
I can point you to a lot of things, of equal value for people as the artists you mention. The problem is that different people value different things, I for one know only the Beatles, and don't really like their music (it's good music, but it's old and kind of boring).
You should finally realizing that the people you list all are a tiny minority and that almost all works are created still either by professionals or by amateurs. The professionals are paid anyway for their work and the amateurs are creating for the fun of it.
Take for example a film. There are many people working to create a film, all are professionals. When the film is finished, it is released to the theatres and the people get paid. Then the DVD is released and the people get paid once more.
Now take out the copyright, what will happen? The film would be still be made, it would still be released to theatres and there would be still a DVD of it. The people who worked would get paid. But they would not be paid indefinitely, because after a while there would be cheaper DVDs from other who just copy the film, and you could download it everywhere for free. But that would not be the problem, because almost all people involved in the production of the film are paid once anyway.
So the outcome would be that the movie studios is pressured hard to create new movies, which they can sell to theatres and make new DVDs. The market would be very dynamic and the outcome would be that more films are made more efficient and there would be much more competition.
If you think I'm crazy, think again, history is on my side. That is exactly what happened in the 19th century in Germany, which did not had any copyright laws. In fact, that period of time is now known as the Golden Age where Germany transformed itself from an agriculture country to an industrial nation. It happened in the USA, too. Long ignored the USA the copyright of books that came from Europe, with the result that it transformed itself in a very short period of time to the powerful nation we know now.
Maybe to come up with something new is harder then it was 50 years ego, I can't argue about that. But technology and information access has so much advanced and is so much easier then it was ever in the history of mankind. Alone Wikipedia's information is enormous and would account of a very large library back 50 years ego, to which only the very fortuned would have had access to. And don't get me started on computers, cars, planes, microscopes, raw materials, tools, and many more, that we take for granted now, but was impossible or out of reach for almost all people 50 years ego.
The problem with the current laws is that it invades my privacy and my right to my property (with DRM) and that is robs me from my culture. Music, games and videos that I grow up with will still be protected years after I die, I cannot share them or use them to create new art. If the laws are going like they go now, copyright will be indefinitely sooner or later (they just extend another 50 or 100 years every time the Beatles or Disneys Mickey Mouse dare to go to public domain).
Because they crossed the line and done substantial damage to our privacy, property and culture, I do not see any ground for discussions, and the only conclusion for me is to abolish copyright in the current form as soon as possible.
Interesting to note, that for 1000s of years it was exactly like that. The creator created "things for the "benefit" of other people, to the detriment of themselves.". Artists didn't received any royalties for centuries, but for the most part art was a job like painting a house. All the great artists and composer just received money one time for a job done, but the work was available for all humankind.
The modern copyright law is just about 300 years old, but it did nothing to actually improve the income for artists. What it did is create artificial monopolies for publishers. There are just 1% of top rich artists, but for 99% of the rest copyright did nothing for them.
Now with the modern technology like internet I see lot of people who create stuff just for the fun of it. And high quality stuff, like videos, pictures, music and software. So the first assumption of copyright is just false, that nobody will create anything if they did not get money in return. The second assumption of copyright is false as well, that longer copyright will improve compensation of artists.
The logical consequence is to abolish copyright in the current form or reduce it's term drastically.
Terrorism was known before 9/11, you know? Just look up how many terrorist groups were already known before even Al Qaeda. Just look them up on Wikipedia*
The USA is current the only country which kills terrorists without a process. All other countries (at least civilized countries) are going the "hard way" and arrest them.
Here** are all Anti-terrorism legislation, please point me to the convention or treaty under which the USA can send drones in foreign countries and kill people with military force.
Then show me please the declaration of war, by the Congress. As far as I know, only the Congress of the USA have the power to declare war. Also you can explain how you can declare war on a group of people.
From Wikipedia: "[Al Qaeda] has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, NATO, and various other countries (see below)."
Sure, but due process mean anything? And, he was just linked to the suspects. So what was his crime again? That he known someone who was a friend who knows a friend of the shooting spree killers?
Yeah, sure, you can kill people with a web site and with a speech. The pen is stronger then the sword. I actually read the article, and there was a drone which was targeting some Al Qaeda people, and it just killed everybody around, and the one American was just a random victim.
That is pretty scary, now if you just happens to be in 10m around some bad people, the USA government have a Carte blanche to kill people, even if they have not done anything.
Can you please point my to the part of the Constitution where you can kill US citizens without due process?
"He was actively fighting against the US. No further pretext is needed."
Did he was in New York with a machine gun, and shot down people? Ah wait, he was a "A Web-savvy Islamic _preacher_ with sparkling English, Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to _couch extremist views_ in ways that appealed to Western youth." So neither the 5th amendment nor the 1th amendment (you know, the right to free speech) don't mean anything that days?
Please show me that declaration of war. I really like to see when the congress of the USA declared war on Al Qaeda, a non-state, an organization of people. As far as I know the US congress didn't even declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan (and not on Libya), but the military acted alone on the order of the president.
That was not a death penalty, there was no process and no judge. That was an execution, plain and simple. An execution, by the US military of an US citizen. That means that your president is no better then Gaddafi. It will not help how you try to justify it by making shit up like "Non-state actor" or "Asymmetric warfare".
I you really believing that? This shit had served the USA to the world to justify their killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have already laws against terrorism and terrorism groups. The USA should have negotiated with Afghanistan for arrest him and his other Al Qaeda members; then the USA and Afgan police should have go and arrest him, if he resists, they are allowed to use deadly force.
But of course that is too difficult, and it's just more easy to just send a drone and kill him without process. And then the USA wonders, why the half of the world hates Americans.
What are the accusations of this Al Qaeda figure, the USA murder? That is he was just a member, did he planned anything, did he blow up something, did he even killed one? Where is the evidence, how can he defend himself if the evidence is false?
Ah we just take the word of the DoD or the CIA that he was a "bad guy", and since we just declare him to a "Non-state actor" or "Asymmetric warfare" or some other bull shit we don't have to explain anything. "He was Al Qaeda, he was a bad guy, just take our word for it, why would we make shit up"
Like you made shit up when you told there were WMDs in Iraq? Like you cover the Saudis in the involvement of 9/11?
Slashdot Mirror
I watched some of P.S. videos on youtube and he is just a right wing economist, the same idiotic claims: lower taxes, decrease government, etc. pp.
That he was right about the crisis, so big deal. I would think all people knew about that crisis was comming, the bankers, the traders, the politicians. If you really want to know what happened in the decade before the crisis, I would suggest you to watch some videos from William K. Black, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1b__MdtHY
Who will take then TEPCO into account if any incidents would happen? Also, regulations and inspections are in place to prevent any incidents to happen in the first place.
Correction: What happened here would be a death sentence for TEPCO, but becuase of *bad* government involvement, TEPCO will survive its mistakes.
Corruption is on both sides, and if the government corrupt in a democracy it's the fault of it's citizens. The Japanese people have elected their government, so why are the Japanese not taking their government into account for their mistakes?
Open Source can be commercial, you know? Ask Redhat with US$ 909.3 million (FY 2011) revenue.
If you go to their page they say you can use "Both MicroSD and MicroSD High Capacity cards are supported. ". So you have way more then just 28K flash. I don't really know why you need a "32-bit embedded processor with integrated FPU" for something like the iPod. From the video and from the pictures the microtouch seems very capable.
Isn't it "evil" if a company lobby congress (or other law makers in other countries) to implement software patents? Is that then the same that "they can't act different"?
Or is the congress (or other politicians) the evil ones, who listen to such selfish lobbying?
I think both are to blame and both are "evil". And the people are too lazy or to stupid and let it happened. I'm really exciting to see Occupy Wall Street and similar protests in Greece and Italy. Because that is the only way to change things.
Google becoming the new Microsoft?
That's a serious question, why you replace 45 perfectly good working cameras with new cameras? If they were broken, then you wouldn't ask what do to with them. It's not like the quality of web-cameras matters, or that the cameras get worse with time. That's like you decide to throw away 2000$ for no reason at all.
I don't really get it why they invest millions in CCTV cameras, face recognitions, and now in tracking of mobile phones. I'm pretty sure it is not to get more customers to the most shopping centres.
Because if they wanted more customers, all they have to do is a) extend the opening time to up 10pm (I was in Sydney and it was a real surprise to me that most shopping centres close at 8pm or earlier. If you work up until 5pm, then you have 3 hours max. for the mall. Or like me who study until 4:30pm, then go home, it's 6pm, then go to mall it's 6:30pm, then you have 1,5 hour in the mall. So the big buildings for the shopping malls are mostly empty the whole day).
And b) drop the prices.
That's why /.'s rating system is for the ass. Why his score is 1 and not +5?
Anyway, even if you do not read the signals from the phone, it is intercepting anyway. You have to receive the signals from the phone somehow to get the position, so it is intercepting. There is also a definition of all terms used.
"communication" includes conversation and a message, and any part of a conversation or message, whether:
(a) in the form of: (i) speech, music or other sounds;(ii) data;(iii) text;(iv) visual images, whether or not animated; or (v) signals; or (b) in any other form or in any combination of forms.
So just a signal is a communication passing over a telecommunications system as defined by law. It is not necessary that the signal is decoded.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/s7.html
um, i know it's being said quite a lot, already, but it's worth repeating: java's pretty much dead on the desktop.
On what evidence did you base your opinion on?
Are you for real? My Eclipse uses 76MByes of RAM. Please read with me: 76 Megabytes RAM. Seventy six. And I have a bunch of plugins, like Groovy, Maven, etc. What I did was start up Eclipse and run a few tests in JUnit.
Also you picked your application somewhat wrong. Eclipse is not a text editor, it's a full blown IDE, like VisualStudio. How much does VisualStudio uses, and it's written in C++. Also Eclipse uses SWT not Swing; SWT uses the native widgets of the system, and Swing is drawing it's own widgets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLO1djacsfg :)
Of course it make sense, since almost all works belong to some publisher. A company can "live" for 50 or 100 years or more. Then it's quite different:
1. Masterpiece, ton of money in first 5 years, more money with the "long tail" in following years - or no money, then it's in some safe or storage room and after the dead of the author it's like described earlier. The more the copyright term the better, to get the "long tail" profits, and exclusion of competition (think of the Beatles, Mickey Mouse, etc).
A long copyright term makes only sense if we talk about the publishers.
and there were some people who thought a "pirate party" is crazy and nobody will vote for them. The old saying is always true "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Well, for the Green Party they skipped the 3rd step.
I can point you to a lot of things, of equal value for people as the artists you mention. The problem is that different people value different things, I for one know only the Beatles, and don't really like their music (it's good music, but it's old and kind of boring).
My list would be:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=HDstarcraft#g/u
146,463,134 views, 384,895 subscribers.
http://www.collegehumor.com/
http://sitasingstheblues.com/
http://www.kernel.org/ (and of course all the Linux distributions and all the free open source tools)
and many more of course, I don't like to post now all of my bookmarks.
You should finally realizing that the people you list all are a tiny minority and that almost all works are created still either by professionals or by amateurs. The professionals are paid anyway for their work and the amateurs are creating for the fun of it.
Take for example a film. There are many people working to create a film, all are professionals. When the film is finished, it is released to the theatres and the people get paid. Then the DVD is released and the people get paid once more.
Now take out the copyright, what will happen? The film would be still be made, it would still be released to theatres and there would be still a DVD of it. The people who worked would get paid. But they would not be paid indefinitely, because after a while there would be cheaper DVDs from other who just copy the film, and you could download it everywhere for free. But that would not be the problem, because almost all people involved in the production of the film are paid once anyway.
So the outcome would be that the movie studios is pressured hard to create new movies, which they can sell to theatres and make new DVDs. The market would be very dynamic and the outcome would be that more films are made more efficient and there would be much more competition.
If you think I'm crazy, think again, history is on my side. That is exactly what happened in the 19th century in Germany, which did not had any copyright laws. In fact, that period of time is now known as the Golden Age where Germany transformed itself from an agriculture country to an industrial nation. It happened in the USA, too. Long ignored the USA the copyright of books that came from Europe, with the result that it transformed itself in a very short period of time to the powerful nation we know now.
Maybe to come up with something new is harder then it was 50 years ego, I can't argue about that. But technology and information access has so much advanced and is so much easier then it was ever in the history of mankind. Alone Wikipedia's information is enormous and would account of a very large library back 50 years ego, to which only the very fortuned would have had access to. And don't get me started on computers, cars, planes, microscopes, raw materials, tools, and many more, that we take for granted now, but was impossible or out of reach for almost all people 50 years ego.
The problem with the current laws is that it invades my privacy and my right to my property (with DRM) and that is robs me from my culture. Music, games and videos that I grow up with will still be protected years after I die, I cannot share them or use them to create new art. If the laws are going like they go now, copyright will be indefinitely sooner or later (they just extend another 50 or 100 years every time the Beatles or Disneys Mickey Mouse dare to go to public domain).
Because they crossed the line and done substantial damage to our privacy, property and culture, I do not see any ground for discussions, and the only conclusion for me is to abolish copyright in the current form as soon as possible.
Interesting to note, that for 1000s of years it was exactly like that. The creator created "things for the "benefit" of other people, to the detriment of themselves.". Artists didn't received any royalties for centuries, but for the most part art was a job like painting a house. All the great artists and composer just received money one time for a job done, but the work was available for all humankind.
The modern copyright law is just about 300 years old, but it did nothing to actually improve the income for artists. What it did is create artificial monopolies for publishers. There are just 1% of top rich artists, but for 99% of the rest copyright did nothing for them.
Now with the modern technology like internet I see lot of people who create stuff just for the fun of it. And high quality stuff, like videos, pictures, music and software. So the first assumption of copyright is just false, that nobody will create anything if they did not get money in return. The second assumption of copyright is false as well, that longer copyright will improve compensation of artists.
The logical consequence is to abolish copyright in the current form or reduce it's term drastically.
Terrorism was known before 9/11, you know? Just look up how many terrorist groups were already known before even Al Qaeda. Just look them up on Wikipedia*
The USA is current the only country which kills terrorists without a process. All other countries (at least civilized countries) are going the "hard way" and arrest them.
Here** are all Anti-terrorism legislation, please point me to the convention or treaty under which the USA can send drones in foreign countries and kill people with military force.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_conventions_on_terrorism#International_conventions_related_to_terrorism_and_counter-terrorism_cases
Then show me please the declaration of war, by the Congress. As far as I know, only the Congress of the USA have the power to declare war. Also you can explain how you can declare war on a group of people.
From Wikipedia: "[Al Qaeda] has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, NATO, and various other countries (see below)."
Sure, but due process mean anything?
And, he was just linked to the suspects. So what was his crime again? That he known someone who was a friend who knows a friend of the shooting spree killers?
Yeah, sure, you can kill people with a web site and with a speech. The pen is stronger then the sword.
I actually read the article, and there was a drone which was targeting some Al Qaeda people, and it just killed everybody around, and the one American was just a random victim.
That is pretty scary, now if you just happens to be in 10m around some bad people, the USA government have a Carte blanche to kill people, even if they have not done anything.
Can you please point my to the part of the Constitution where you can kill US citizens without due process?
"He was actively fighting against the US. No further pretext is needed."
Did he was in New York with a machine gun, and shot down people? Ah wait, he was a "A Web-savvy Islamic _preacher_ with sparkling English, Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to _couch extremist views_ in ways that appealed to Western youth." So neither the 5th amendment nor the 1th amendment (you know, the right to free speech) don't mean anything that days?
Please show me that declaration of war. I really like to see when the congress of the USA declared war on Al Qaeda, a non-state, an organization of people. As far as I know the US congress didn't even declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan (and not on Libya), but the military acted alone on the order of the president.
That was not a death penalty, there was no process and no judge. That was an execution, plain and simple. An execution, by the US military of an US citizen. That means that your president is no better then Gaddafi. It will not help how you try to justify it by making shit up like "Non-state actor" or "Asymmetric warfare".
I you really believing that? This shit had served the USA to the world to justify their killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have already laws against terrorism and terrorism groups. The USA should have negotiated with Afghanistan for arrest him and his other Al Qaeda members; then the USA and Afgan police should have go and arrest him, if he resists, they are allowed to use deadly force.
But of course that is too difficult, and it's just more easy to just send a drone and kill him without process. And then the USA wonders, why the half of the world hates Americans.
What are the accusations of this Al Qaeda figure, the USA murder? That is he was just a member, did he planned anything, did he blow up something, did he even killed one? Where is the evidence, how can he defend himself if the evidence is false?
Ah we just take the word of the DoD or the CIA that he was a "bad guy", and since we just declare him to a "Non-state actor" or "Asymmetric warfare" or some other bull shit we don't have to explain anything. "He was Al Qaeda, he was a bad guy, just take our word for it, why would we make shit up"
Like you made shit up when you told there were WMDs in Iraq? Like you cover the Saudis in the involvement of 9/11?