Their post called me "paranoid" and then went on as if it had an airtight case against nuke satellites existing. If that's not their implication, then what's the point of their argument?
So I responded in kind with "blah blah blah". So what? That's the level of respect they invoked, so they got it. What matters is that I completely countered their argument denying nuke satellites with facts and logic.
And if their argument wasn't that there are no nuke satellites, so what? What are they saying? It doesn't matter, because my argument shows that there are nuke satellites, there will continue to be arguments for them, the ones arguing will win when they want.
These satellites are a risk. If you're going to try arguing against that with arguments you yourself imply are irrelevant to the point, then don't bother.
So I called you out as a nuke fetishist. Because I saw through you, as only nuke fetishists have the illogic and devotion to nukes to talk the way you both did. My "political ideology" is self preservation, underwritten by working logic and knowledge of history. Too bad that you're politically opposed to that. Because that puts you on the losing side. Especially when you try your own hand at the kind of obvious inferences I successfully derived from your posts, that you try to put down, but fail to pull off yourself.
People defending nuke deployments have a hallmark obsession with both cherrypicked logic and inability to relate to human nature. It's like you sat too close to the TV too long when you you were kids.
Bottom line: nuke launches are a risk when secret, they've been launched in secret, they can be launched in secret. You both are defending that, with weak arguments.
Their "reasoning" consists of calling me paranoid, and denying that nuke powered satellites would ever be launched because of physics and engineering problems, and the superiority of solar alternatives.
So I showed not only cases where nukes would be used because solar isn't good enough, but actual examples of nuke satellites already used.
So what if you nuke fetishists cannot even bother to read the simple reasons that debunk your absolute assertions. You're incurable. But at least you are quickly and easily beaten in public - a public which has grown to expect your lies.
Thanks for making it easy to not just win this argument, but to discredit the basic thinking skills of you people mesmerized by the nuke glow.
What about a satellite that doesn't want to depend on solar power, like a satellite killer, or just one immune to that kind of satellite attack?
Oh yeah, there have already been nukes have already powered satellites, and the same physics and engineering requirements would make them appropriate again.
And I don't think that the spooks with the nukes are afraid of having to pass regulatory boards when they don't want to.
Can these spotters tell whether a secret satellite has a nuke reactor or materials onboard? Because there's no way to know the overall risk those kinds of craft pose to us so long as they're all secret. And if the risks are no impediment to their launch, then they're more likely to be launched. There's no way to know whether we're already suffering from junk nuke craft falling back to Earth.
Evidently J2/JFax was suing Protus, which also threatened Hylafax the last couple-few years. But I've just been advised elsewhere in this thread that that specific suit has been dismissed. I'm not sure whether Hylafax is in the clear. But if not, it should be cheaper and easier now for the EFF to finally kill that last major obstacle to FOSS voice apps.
Software patents are always stupid. Software is always a description of how something works, not the thing itself working. It's obvious that only copyright, not patent, is at all applicable to software.
Software copyright examinations are so much more automatable than patent searches that the entire US IP registration system would be converted back to a respectable institution again by using them.
It's obvious that you didn't read any of the rest of this old thread, in which there's plenty of discussion of the fact that rights do not change. Sure, the laws protecting it can change, but the Constitution's instructions to protect it haven't changed.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm a human who knows my rights. And an American who understands the Constitution. The rest is the crap I have to fight to live free.
Unless there's a way to sense the inductance on the thin elastic top layer, protected from inductance changes in the expandable layer.
And there's also ultrasonic touch sensors, though I think they're not so good at multiple touchpoints, and would also probably have refraction problems through the raised features.
Well, that's good news, even if it's a single (unspecified) fax patent that the decision just says doesn't require a license from J2. I hope it shows a hole in J2's overall patent suppression of Internet faxing.
I hope the EFF eventually turns to take down the patents locking up Internet faxing. Practically all regular telephone features are available in FOSS software (like Asterisk and better) that let people start up "telcos" to compete with the big ones for very little startup money and basic development time. All except Internet faxing, which J2 (formerly JFax) has locked up with patents.
Those fax patents are bogus. But destroying them would cost something like $millions which is more than any of its single licensees has to pay, so individuals just license it because that's cheaper.
If the EFF could organize potential licensees to fund an EFF suit to eliminate the bogus patent, it would free up Internet faxing for everyone. Which would mean that there would no longer be that single exception to "telephone service" that requries cutting in a patent extortionist. Which would mean FOSS Internet faxing SW could get development the way the rest of telephony has. Which would mean complete telcos could be started up without the costs and barriers that still keeps it an exclusive club for AT&T, Verizon and occasional VC funded "little giants" like Vonage.
The touchscreens mentioned in this Slashdot story don't detect pressure per se, they detect the inductance change on the screen when a finger touches it. Would the voltages in these pockets interfere with those dynamics?
Microsoft had the guts to lie in this op-ed. It's the journalist covering it (and Slashdot repeating them) where the guts are lacking to call it "lying".
That's how the lies live on. Because "not a compliment" is not a condemnation.
Well, I'm not the journalist who took it on themself to show Microsoft's op-ed was full of false statements, that anyone at Microsoft expert enough to have the op-ed job should know better. And so either did know better or willfully ignored the truth. These op-eds get reviewed by corporate lawyers who have that express responsibility. Though at Microsoft, the positive effects on Microsoft PR are of course weighed against the value of the truth vs the costs of lying per se.
So it's obvious that it's lying. If I were going to publish this post as an actual journalistic exercise, rather than an obscure conversation with an Anonymous Coward, I'd complete the journalist's obligation of the rest of the research to identify the specific evidence. But the basic story painted with lies is easy to see here.
Stupid lies are still lies. Motives matter to the person themself, and if documentable with evidence can be used to predict whether someone will do something again. But "benefit of the doubt" is sloppy journalism. If they're going to report on someone's public statements, and especially if they go so far as to point out they're false, an actual journalist will find whether there's evidence that the liar knew the truth, or willfully ignored it.
I'm interested in the results of these strangers and their lies. How they feel about them, not so much. Unless they regret lying enough to not do it again, which usually involves being exposed as a liar in so many words.
If I have 3 gyroscopes spinning on axes each at right angles to the others, inside a little box, does that seem to increase the mass of the object just as if it had more mass? Would spinning faster make it seem heavier, more inertial?
So everyone else's cut is going up, even though the songwriter's costs and work are the same. But the rest of the "value" chain to the consumer (which now is composed mostly of the consumer, recommending and trying to share the content) is drastically reduced in cost and increased in availability of inventory (which was typically paid off according to plan many years ago).
Actually, I think that if someone says something in public that could damage the person they're talking about, then the burden of proof is on the person saying it. But simply citing the evidence that someone said something they knew was false, or that the subject willfully ignored the truth when speaking of it, when they say that person is lying, should constitute sufficient proof to dismiss any libel case. And to recover defense legal fees, as well as the ironically reverse damages for falsely accusing someone of libel.
FWIW, lawyers bringing frivolous libel suits should be disbarred after bringing 3 in any 10 years, or a lifetime of maybe 5 or 6.
It's easy to prove the op-ed writers know just as well as their critics in this story that their assertions are false. That's lying. It doesn't matter if their "intention" was to lie, so long as they knew they were saying in public something that was false.
Besides, even "unintentional lying" is merely an oxymoron, not an actual contradiction. If you don't bother to see whether what you're saying is false, though you're responsible for doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
Their post called me "paranoid" and then went on as if it had an airtight case against nuke satellites existing. If that's not their implication, then what's the point of their argument?
So I responded in kind with "blah blah blah". So what? That's the level of respect they invoked, so they got it. What matters is that I completely countered their argument denying nuke satellites with facts and logic.
And if their argument wasn't that there are no nuke satellites, so what? What are they saying? It doesn't matter, because my argument shows that there are nuke satellites, there will continue to be arguments for them, the ones arguing will win when they want.
These satellites are a risk. If you're going to try arguing against that with arguments you yourself imply are irrelevant to the point, then don't bother.
So I called you out as a nuke fetishist. Because I saw through you, as only nuke fetishists have the illogic and devotion to nukes to talk the way you both did. My "political ideology" is self preservation, underwritten by working logic and knowledge of history. Too bad that you're politically opposed to that. Because that puts you on the losing side. Especially when you try your own hand at the kind of obvious inferences I successfully derived from your posts, that you try to put down, but fail to pull off yourself.
People defending nuke deployments have a hallmark obsession with both cherrypicked logic and inability to relate to human nature. It's like you sat too close to the TV too long when you you were kids.
Bottom line: nuke launches are a risk when secret, they've been launched in secret, they can be launched in secret. You both are defending that, with weak arguments.
Their "reasoning" consists of calling me paranoid, and denying that nuke powered satellites would ever be launched because of physics and engineering problems, and the superiority of solar alternatives.
So I showed not only cases where nukes would be used because solar isn't good enough, but actual examples of nuke satellites already used.
So what if you nuke fetishists cannot even bother to read the simple reasons that debunk your absolute assertions. You're incurable. But at least you are quickly and easily beaten in public - a public which has grown to expect your lies.
Thanks for making it easy to not just win this argument, but to discredit the basic thinking skills of you people mesmerized by the nuke glow.
Blah blah blah.
What about a satellite that doesn't want to depend on solar power, like a satellite killer, or just one immune to that kind of satellite attack?
Oh yeah, there have already been nukes have already powered satellites, and the same physics and engineering requirements would make them appropriate again.
And I don't think that the spooks with the nukes are afraid of having to pass regulatory boards when they don't want to.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
TrollMods are afraid Thomas Edison will flame me from beyond the grave.
Does your knowledge include classified info about these satellites? Because that'e exactly what I'm talking about.
Er, not Japanese. Taiwanese.
I never understood why the Japanese guys blew up the guy's car towards the end, which is what triggered the entire plot to finally resolve.
Can these spotters tell whether a secret satellite has a nuke reactor or materials onboard? Because there's no way to know the overall risk those kinds of craft pose to us so long as they're all secret. And if the risks are no impediment to their launch, then they're more likely to be launched. There's no way to know whether we're already suffering from junk nuke craft falling back to Earth.
Evidently J2/JFax was suing Protus, which also threatened Hylafax the last couple-few years. But I've just been advised elsewhere in this thread that that specific suit has been dismissed. I'm not sure whether Hylafax is in the clear. But if not, it should be cheaper and easier now for the EFF to finally kill that last major obstacle to FOSS voice apps.
Software patents are always stupid. Software is always a description of how something works, not the thing itself working. It's obvious that only copyright, not patent, is at all applicable to software.
Software copyright examinations are so much more automatable than patent searches that the entire US IP registration system would be converted back to a respectable institution again by using them.
It's obvious that you didn't read any of the rest of this old thread, in which there's plenty of discussion of the fact that rights do not change. Sure, the laws protecting it can change, but the Constitution's instructions to protect it haven't changed.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm a human who knows my rights. And an American who understands the Constitution. The rest is the crap I have to fight to live free.
Unless there's a way to sense the inductance on the thin elastic top layer, protected from inductance changes in the expandable layer.
And there's also ultrasonic touch sensors, though I think they're not so good at multiple touchpoints, and would also probably have refraction problems through the raised features.
But it's cool enough to keep investigating it.
Well, that's good news, even if it's a single (unspecified) fax patent that the decision just says doesn't require a license from J2. I hope it shows a hole in J2's overall patent suppression of Internet faxing.
One man and two women... the American (het male) dream. Leave it to a bunch of geeks to turn it from sex into a test tube.
I hope the EFF eventually turns to take down the patents locking up Internet faxing. Practically all regular telephone features are available in FOSS software (like Asterisk and better) that let people start up "telcos" to compete with the big ones for very little startup money and basic development time. All except Internet faxing, which J2 (formerly JFax) has locked up with patents.
Those fax patents are bogus. But destroying them would cost something like $millions which is more than any of its single licensees has to pay, so individuals just license it because that's cheaper.
If the EFF could organize potential licensees to fund an EFF suit to eliminate the bogus patent, it would free up Internet faxing for everyone. Which would mean that there would no longer be that single exception to "telephone service" that requries cutting in a patent extortionist. Which would mean FOSS Internet faxing SW could get development the way the rest of telephony has. Which would mean complete telcos could be started up without the costs and barriers that still keeps it an exclusive club for AT&T, Verizon and occasional VC funded "little giants" like Vonage.
The touchscreens mentioned in this Slashdot story don't detect pressure per se, they detect the inductance change on the screen when a finger touches it. Would the voltages in these pockets interfere with those dynamics?
They used to be in the opera piracy business, but that was too exciting.
Microsoft had the guts to lie in this op-ed. It's the journalist covering it (and Slashdot repeating them) where the guts are lacking to call it "lying".
That's how the lies live on. Because "not a compliment" is not a condemnation.
If only more people would follow my simple, clear example, there'd be less lying.
Well, I'm not the journalist who took it on themself to show Microsoft's op-ed was full of false statements, that anyone at Microsoft expert enough to have the op-ed job should know better. And so either did know better or willfully ignored the truth. These op-eds get reviewed by corporate lawyers who have that express responsibility. Though at Microsoft, the positive effects on Microsoft PR are of course weighed against the value of the truth vs the costs of lying per se.
So it's obvious that it's lying. If I were going to publish this post as an actual journalistic exercise, rather than an obscure conversation with an Anonymous Coward, I'd complete the journalist's obligation of the rest of the research to identify the specific evidence. But the basic story painted with lies is easy to see here.
Stupid lies are still lies. Motives matter to the person themself, and if documentable with evidence can be used to predict whether someone will do something again. But "benefit of the doubt" is sloppy journalism. If they're going to report on someone's public statements, and especially if they go so far as to point out they're false, an actual journalist will find whether there's evidence that the liar knew the truth, or willfully ignored it.
I'm interested in the results of these strangers and their lies. How they feel about them, not so much. Unless they regret lying enough to not do it again, which usually involves being exposed as a liar in so many words.
If I have 3 gyroscopes spinning on axes each at right angles to the others, inside a little box, does that seem to increase the mass of the object just as if it had more mass? Would spinning faster make it seem heavier, more inertial?
Cutting 13% down to 8% is a 38% reduction.
So everyone else's cut is going up, even though the songwriter's costs and work are the same. But the rest of the "value" chain to the consumer (which now is composed mostly of the consumer, recommending and trying to share the content) is drastically reduced in cost and increased in availability of inventory (which was typically paid off according to plan many years ago).
Actually, I think that if someone says something in public that could damage the person they're talking about, then the burden of proof is on the person saying it. But simply citing the evidence that someone said something they knew was false, or that the subject willfully ignored the truth when speaking of it, when they say that person is lying, should constitute sufficient proof to dismiss any libel case. And to recover defense legal fees, as well as the ironically reverse damages for falsely accusing someone of libel.
FWIW, lawyers bringing frivolous libel suits should be disbarred after bringing 3 in any 10 years, or a lifetime of maybe 5 or 6.
It's easy to prove the op-ed writers know just as well as their critics in this story that their assertions are false. That's lying. It doesn't matter if their "intention" was to lie, so long as they knew they were saying in public something that was false.
Besides, even "unintentional lying" is merely an oxymoron, not an actual contradiction. If you don't bother to see whether what you're saying is false, though you're responsible for doing so.