"When YOU see a single drive that hits the lba48 limit of 128TB, gimme a call, I'll send you a crisp twenty dollar bill."
I predict you'll get that call in a decade, 15 years tops. Why? Firstly, because we can. Secondly, because there are those out there (arguably rare, but still out there) who will need the capacity. I clearly remember a time, not all that long ago, in the grand scheme of things, when the biggest harddrives held only a few megabytes. I've certainly met my share of machines designed with the philosphy that any built in permanent storage at all was overkill.
On the other hand, what about people who _would_ pay 99 cents were the copyright infringement option not availible? They certainly represent lost sales due to piracy. Of course, even if you wouldn't pay for the product ever, that doesn't mean that it is right or lawful to get it for free. That is a seperate issue completely. Just because a certain movie doesn't appeal to me, does that make it fair to sneak into a theater and watch it. Does it make it fair to tape it while I'm there anyway and give copies to my friends?
Well, it does say that you will have the choice (starting in a few days) whether or not you want to accept the new privacy policy. They are posting in advance for you to review. If you disagree with the new policy, you have time to move somewhere else.
Which is only a fallacy if the window which replaces the broken one is a similar window. If it were, for example, a more modern, efficient window, then society _does_ gain (not from the breaking window, but from the 'upgrade'). These economists aren't stupid (well, mostly). They know that replacing one window from another doesn't magically generate wealth for the baker, the farmer, etc. However, it would be an encouragement to use a better window.
Someone must be held accountable! In order to maintain the proud, bureaucratic tradition of post-apollo NASA we must fire the engineers responsible. Do you have any idea how many man hours have been wasted trying to operate a rover that should have been dead months ago?
Actually, from what I hear it was more like an 850 ft altitude, during landing. The idea is the prevent the pilot from seeing during the time that he needs his vision the most. I would suspect that the amount of power involved was the reason that nothing really happened. And actually, I think not a laser, but a very bright, somewhat directional beam of light would work better. Tom Clancy wrote about using bright light to cause plane crashes in Debt of Honor. Of course, he also wrote about an airliner crashing into the capital building...
Look, your "logic" has no place here. This is the land of knee jerk, uninformed, karma whoring comments. Please, take your "understanding of concepts" elsewhere.
so... are you in favor of losing jobs or pollution?
Or maybe there is another option that you ignored in your attempt to somehow admonish "Bush haters" (which are obviously a fungible mass that all hate Bush for the same reason). It isn't like the government can pitch in and subsidize modernizations that lead to a cleaner economy. Also, clearly all expenses related to Kyoto compliance _must_ come directly from what would otherwise be payed as wages. It isn't as if companies would except a low level of profits in order to remain profitable at all (actually, scratch that, I forgot-- companies can just continue to lay off people even until their facilities close with no harmful effect on their bottom line). Oh, and hate to break it to you, but despite all our talk of free market economics, Americans _are_ magically entitled to a 2000% cost-of-living bonus.
Please submit this to your local press as well as national press agencies as a story idea. Many new agencies have a mechanism to allow people to request stories. If enough people submit this, the media (in an effort to attract viewership) will cover the story. If more people find out about this, it will get the proper attention. I'm not saying that any of these are examples of fraud or even that they have a significant effect on the election, however, they _should_ be investigated. Many of these problems are going on uninvestigated. The media seems to have a 'shit happens' attitude about it and is, as a whole, ignoring it and/or avoiding the tough questions (did this significantly effect the election? Who is responsible? Was it done on purpose? What can be done to correct the error, either for these returns or for future elections?).
Thank you. This is exactly what I think. We need to send out the message that election fraud _can not b e tolerated_. Period. The problem of course is that if you cheat, you win. And if you win, you get to make the agenda and so the agenda doesn't say a damn thing about stopping cheaters.
Not to pick on you, particularly, because I know you are joking, but that is exactly the wrong attitude. Stick with America. If the people who have cared about our democracy in the past become so frustrated that they remove themselves from the process (geographically or mentally), there will be _no_ way for the entirety of american values and ideals to be represented. My number one fear right now is that the democrats, greens, libertarians, etc just surrender now, because I don't think America and the democratic process can survive without the attention of all well meaning Americans right now. Democracy isn't just about majority rule-- it is about reaching a compromise that maxmizes societal welfare.
Unlike most of our current politicians, I don't consider the New York Stock Exchange and Multinational Corporations to be more important than citizens. You know that there are a lot of people who work in the NYSE building, right? Remember, what you want is _equal_ protection for all citizens. The NYSE is more likely to be a target for terror than your house (target valuation), therefore it _should_ have more protection. Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of noninstitutional investors who would be effected by a run in the stock market. Who was hurt worst by the depression? Small time investors. "Average joe" types. Look, I agree that security starts at home, but we have to be realistic about cause and effect.
The only way to keep your civil liberties at this point are to protect them. Sadly, as far as protecting your host is concerned, that probably means hosting as far away from the Western world as possible right now... better yet, decentralize. As far as all the calls for encryption on the disks, etc, I doubt it would help. I suspect the primary goal of the seizure was to take the site down for as long as possible. Hope someone made a backup. The other possibility is that someone is trying to retrieve user info and access logs. Unfortunately, I'm sure many people involved with the project were not paranoid enough to protect their identities from IndyMedia.
The major labels are not a monopoly. They compete against each other. What they are, because of their numbers and as a result of the difficulty of effectively entering the national music market without a major label distributor, is a cartel. Basically, when several companies collude (which is basically the function of the RIAA right now-- it is the forum of the label's collusion) to gain market dominance, that's a cartel market. Now, in some cases, this is legal, in some it isn't. For example, price fixing is illegal, but only if there is an explicit agreement (IIRC, IANAL). The fact that they can charge tremendous amounts for CDs because everyone does is not enough to sue them for (well, assuming you want to win).
Except that even in Libertarian society, enough law must be present for the rights of people and democracy to be safe guarded. The order, if you had even read the first page, would tell you that the complaint is that a public entity (ASU) and the CPD both violated equal protection under the law clauses both in the federal and arizona state constitution. A judge handed down the papers for CPD to be served, and Micheal was therefore at the debate _as an officer of the court_. He had a legal right to be there, the lp's rights were being violated, and in any sane legal system these rights would be protected.
I was going to reply to one of the child posts, but I couldn't decide which one was more illogical and/or ridiculous, so I'll just post a general rebutal to the "MUSLIM==TERRORISM" crowd. Firstly, not all terror _is_ committed by Muslims. Remember a certain federal building in Oklahoma? Also, Muslims aren't the ones bombing women's clinics for giving abortions. Secondly, the followers of islam who commit these acts do so in violation of religious law, according to most of the other members of their religion. Lastly, even if every last terrorist were muslim, that would still mean that the vast majority of the muslim world is composed of normal, law abidding people.
Slashdot Mirror
Stanford University Network.
"When YOU see a single drive that hits the lba48 limit of 128TB, gimme a call, I'll send you a crisp twenty dollar bill."
I predict you'll get that call in a decade, 15 years tops. Why? Firstly, because we can. Secondly, because there are those out there (arguably rare, but still out there) who will need the capacity. I clearly remember a time, not all that long ago, in the grand scheme of things, when the biggest harddrives held only a few megabytes. I've certainly met my share of machines designed with the philosphy that any built in permanent storage at all was overkill.
On the other hand, what about people who _would_ pay 99 cents were the copyright infringement option not availible? They certainly represent lost sales due to piracy. Of course, even if you wouldn't pay for the product ever, that doesn't mean that it is right or lawful to get it for free. That is a seperate issue completely. Just because a certain movie doesn't appeal to me, does that make it fair to sneak into a theater and watch it. Does it make it fair to tape it while I'm there anyway and give copies to my friends?
Well, it does say that you will have the choice (starting in a few days) whether or not you want to accept the new privacy policy. They are posting in advance for you to review. If you disagree with the new policy, you have time to move somewhere else.
and I'll say it again:
Witchcraft!
Brought to you by a fist shaking, angst ridden C coder.
Which is only a fallacy if the window which replaces the broken one is a similar window. If it were, for example, a more modern, efficient window, then society _does_ gain (not from the breaking window, but from the 'upgrade'). These economists aren't stupid (well, mostly). They know that replacing one window from another doesn't magically generate wealth for the baker, the farmer, etc. However, it would be an encouragement to use a better window.
You know, I clicked on '1 Reply' expecting to find someone with no sense of humor. Sure enough, the ACs rarely disappoint.
Someone must be held accountable! In order to maintain the proud, bureaucratic tradition of post-apollo NASA we must fire the engineers responsible. Do you have any idea how many man hours have been wasted trying to operate a rover that should have been dead months ago?
Actually, from what I hear it was more like an 850 ft altitude, during landing. The idea is the prevent the pilot from seeing during the time that he needs his vision the most. I would suspect that the amount of power involved was the reason that nothing really happened. And actually, I think not a laser, but a very bright, somewhat directional beam of light would work better. Tom Clancy wrote about using bright light to cause plane crashes in Debt of Honor. Of course, he also wrote about an airliner crashing into the capital building...
Slashdot comment protocol error 140: Users presented as fungible mass. Please set "Assume Hivemind" to "No" in the settings panel and try again.
You do not have a right to profits! Seriously, this is what an economist would call "competition." In capitalism, it is supposed to happen.
Look, your "logic" has no place here. This is the land of knee jerk, uninformed, karma whoring comments. Please, take your "understanding of concepts" elsewhere.
so... are you in favor of losing jobs or pollution?
Or maybe there is another option that you ignored in your attempt to somehow admonish "Bush haters" (which are obviously a fungible mass that all hate Bush for the same reason). It isn't like the government can pitch in and subsidize modernizations that lead to a cleaner economy. Also, clearly all expenses related to Kyoto compliance _must_ come directly from what would otherwise be payed as wages. It isn't as if companies would except a low level of profits in order to remain profitable at all (actually, scratch that, I forgot-- companies can just continue to lay off people even until their facilities close with no harmful effect on their bottom line). Oh, and hate to break it to you, but despite all our talk of free market economics, Americans _are_ magically entitled to a 2000% cost-of-living bonus.
Please submit this to your local press as well as national press agencies as a story idea. Many new agencies have a mechanism to allow people to request stories. If enough people submit this, the media (in an effort to attract viewership) will cover the story. If more people find out about this, it will get the proper attention. I'm not saying that any of these are examples of fraud or even that they have a significant effect on the election, however, they _should_ be investigated. Many of these problems are going on uninvestigated. The media seems to have a 'shit happens' attitude about it and is, as a whole, ignoring it and/or avoiding the tough questions (did this significantly effect the election? Who is responsible? Was it done on purpose? What can be done to correct the error, either for these returns or for future elections?).
Thank you. This is exactly what I think. We need to send out the message that election fraud _can not b e tolerated_. Period. The problem of course is that if you cheat, you win. And if you win, you get to make the agenda and so the agenda doesn't say a damn thing about stopping cheaters.
Not to pick on you, particularly, because I know you are joking, but that is exactly the wrong attitude. Stick with America. If the people who have cared about our democracy in the past become so frustrated that they remove themselves from the process (geographically or mentally), there will be _no_ way for the entirety of american values and ideals to be represented. My number one fear right now is that the democrats, greens, libertarians, etc just surrender now, because I don't think America and the democratic process can survive without the attention of all well meaning Americans right now. Democracy isn't just about majority rule-- it is about reaching a compromise that maxmizes societal welfare.
Assuming the next election goes on schedule...
Bet you're wishing you went with that macrokernel now, eh?
Ok, so actually the site is running Linux/Apache/mod_php.
Unlike most of our current politicians, I don't consider the New York Stock Exchange and Multinational Corporations to be more important than citizens.
You know that there are a lot of people who work in the NYSE building, right? Remember, what you want is _equal_ protection for all citizens. The NYSE is more likely to be a target for terror than your house (target valuation), therefore it _should_ have more protection. Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of noninstitutional investors who would be effected by a run in the stock market. Who was hurt worst by the depression? Small time investors. "Average joe" types. Look, I agree that security starts at home, but we have to be realistic about cause and effect.
The only way to keep your civil liberties at this point are to protect them. Sadly, as far as protecting your host is concerned, that probably means hosting as far away from the Western world as possible right now... better yet, decentralize. As far as all the calls for encryption on the disks, etc, I doubt it would help. I suspect the primary goal of the seizure was to take the site down for as long as possible. Hope someone made a backup. The other possibility is that someone is trying to retrieve user info and access logs. Unfortunately, I'm sure many people involved with the project were not paranoid enough to protect their identities from IndyMedia.
The major labels are not a monopoly. They compete against each other. What they are, because of their numbers and as a result of the difficulty of effectively entering the national music market without a major label distributor, is a cartel. Basically, when several companies collude (which is basically the function of the RIAA right now-- it is the forum of the label's collusion) to gain market dominance, that's a cartel market. Now, in some cases, this is legal, in some it isn't. For example, price fixing is illegal, but only if there is an explicit agreement (IIRC, IANAL). The fact that they can charge tremendous amounts for CDs because everyone does is not enough to sue them for (well, assuming you want to win).
annnndddd whhhhooossshhh.... there goes the joke.
Except that even in Libertarian society, enough law must be present for the rights of people and democracy to be safe guarded. The order, if you had even read the first page, would tell you that the complaint is that a public entity (ASU) and the CPD both violated equal protection under the law clauses both in the federal and arizona state constitution. A judge handed down the papers for CPD to be served, and Micheal was therefore at the debate _as an officer of the court_. He had a legal right to be there, the lp's rights were being violated, and in any sane legal system these rights would be protected.
There's an excellent standard format for documents, which the academic system has widely embraced for quite some time. It is called "paper."
I was going to reply to one of the child posts, but I couldn't decide which one was more illogical and/or ridiculous, so I'll just post a general rebutal to the "MUSLIM==TERRORISM" crowd. Firstly, not all terror _is_ committed by Muslims. Remember a certain federal building in Oklahoma? Also, Muslims aren't the ones bombing women's clinics for giving abortions. Secondly, the followers of islam who commit these acts do so in violation of religious law, according to most of the other members of their religion. Lastly, even if every last terrorist were muslim, that would still mean that the vast majority of the muslim world is composed of normal, law abidding people.