But how is this situation different from say the age of the tea house music or the Vienna Waltz or the 20ies Musicals? 95% of everything is crap. You just notice it today for today's music, because yesterday's crap music is already forgotten.
I remember in the 80ies a host on a local radio station saying: "Today you can become a sing star with a voice which would cause you to fail the ballett casting." And he was probably quoting a radio host from the 60ies who in turn had it from a prewar conferencier.
Cyril Northcote Parkinson knew it already. Not only does work fill up all available time for its completation, the most discussed items at an agenda are not the ones most important, but the ones most participants believe to know something about.
I know some languages, but the article (which I didn't write, just commented about once) was rewritten and included my comment, and later on got translated to other languages. Thus it is this single article, which has spawn lots of copies and some translations.
The only thing that comes up several times about me after googling myself is a potential threath to Windows Vista security I once described. It was published as a footnote in a single article, and it comes now up in english, french, spanish, italian and german. So what impression will a potential employer have about me?
I don't hate it. I just never used it yet. I have still Win2K at home and WinXP on my company's laptop. Even though it is labelled 'Windows Vista capable', and my company is actually the maker of the laptop, it never rolled out Windows Vista to its employees.
The only security and privacy that they care about is their own. These concepts don't exist for people who are not executives in the company. Especially customers.
Add "copyrights" to the list. Since there are several cases showing how little the "entertainments" industry cares about other people's copyrights. The Sony BMC Rootkit was actually one of those examples. First4Internet used GPLed code and didn't publish the source for their product, and neither did Sony BMC which distributed First4Internet's modifications.
So Sony BMC was infringing on someone else's copyright there.
And moreso: You open every step of the election to the public, so everyone can watch the distributing of the ballot sheets, the checking of the voter's paper at the election place, the sealing of the voting boxes, the putting of the ballots in the box after voting, the opening of the boxes, the counting of the votes, the transport of the resealed boxes with the votes and the results to the voting offices and the addition of the single results to the final sums.
The only step in the voting process that must not be public is the actual casting of the vote.
Mig 31 hits almost the same speed as the Blackbird. The version of MiG 25, that hit Mach 3.0 even was an early prototype, the E-266. Production MiG 25 or MiG 31 aren't that fast. And this was back in 1967, so really 40 years ago. The MiG 31 is a redesign of the MiG 25, starting from the E-155MP prototype, an improved version of the E-155 prototype of the MiG 25 from 1964. Yeah, we are talking about very old tech here.
2. The author dies, so does the copyright. Any term based on time for copyright is doomed because there will always be someone who thinks it isn't long enough. The main problem with this is: You can hire a killer if an author doesn't want to license to you. Then his work becomes public domain and you get what you want. The +70 after death was introduced to remove the incentive to kill creative people to get hold of their work.
But it could be that he knew they were spammers when he just saw them removing the company logo from the building and later on asking the neighbours why they closed shop.
I didn't also know that one of my neighbours was a three time child murderer until a camera team came to interview my wife about them.
This was just an answer to the posting before, where the author claimed that it is possible to detain and abuse them, because they are non-U.S.-citizens and thus don't have rights under the U.S. constitution.
Who exactly of the detainees in Guantanamo did? Convicted because of material support for terrorism (e.g. not mistreating anyone himself, just abbeding and helping) is a single person right now, and he's from Australia.
1: That's factually incorrect. Dozens have been charged in their home countries. The NY Times disagrees. It counts exactly one conviction (in Australia), 10 charges and 3 pending cases for all detainees, former and present ones.
2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least.
3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does? Everything else I agree with (especially with the irony;) )
1. About half of the "lovely freedom fighters" are sent home already, and none of them ever got charged with anything. Obviously at least half of them were never "lovely freedom fighters". Whoever they were, they surely aren't THEY beheading innocent people and videotaping them. Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals.
2. A concentration camp is something else than an extermination camp. Concentration camps were set up and are set up to round up people deemed somehow dangerous without ever telling anyone why exept for some general accusations. Germans were using the term "concentration camp" because it didn't have the horrible sound until it was discovered that the German concentration camps in fact were extermination camps.
3. Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens.
That's where my Third comes in: Reading something without the librarian condoning it was a crime in mediaval monastries. You were still allowed to carry it around. And you had to keep it secret that you were able to read in certain circumstances.
First of all: DRM is some sort of lock. Second: Reverse engineering keys is as old as creating locks. Third: Having a librarian in a monastry's library was also some kind of DRM. He was the arbiter who decided (sometimes after consulting with the abbot) which monk was entitled to which book, and when he had to return it.
... doesn't that mean that if anyone started mining the salt there, all navigational devices are hosed, because there is no normal anymore to calibrate them?
Evolution would not allow for a jumplike correction of a not so optimal construction, it would rather replace said construction with a completely new one.
For instance the retina of all vertebratae is reversed. The light sensing cells have their nervous connectors at the inside of the eye, thus making it necessary to bundle the nerve fibres and have them cross the retina at a certain place, the so called Blind Spot, to connect them to the brain. That's completely different in eyes coming from the protostomia branch of the animal species, like insects or mollusks. With those the light sensing cells have the nervous connectors at the outside of the eye, thus allowing a direct connection to the brain without crossing the retina.
Evolution wouldn't allow for a mutation that reverses the retina. So this faulty construction will be continued until a species develops a complete replacement for the vertebratae eye (lets say a group of blind vertebratae like some gophers starts a new population on the surface, thus creating the chance for new light sensing cells to develop).
Slashdot Mirror
But how is this situation different from say the age of the tea house music or the Vienna Waltz or the 20ies Musicals? 95% of everything is crap. You just notice it today for today's music, because yesterday's crap music is already forgotten.
I remember in the 80ies a host on a local radio station saying: "Today you can become a sing star with a voice which would cause you to fail the ballett casting." And he was probably quoting a radio host from the 60ies who in turn had it from a prewar conferencier.
Cyril Northcote Parkinson knew it already. Not only does work fill up all available time for its completation, the most discussed items at an agenda are not the ones most important, but the ones most participants believe to know something about.
I know some languages, but the article (which I didn't write, just commented about once) was rewritten and included my comment, and later on got translated to other languages. Thus it is this single article, which has spawn lots of copies and some translations.
The only thing that comes up several times about me after googling myself is a potential threath to Windows Vista security I once described. It was published as a footnote in a single article, and it comes now up in english, french, spanish, italian and german. So what impression will a potential employer have about me?
It works fine in Germany or Austria. Counting the vote is public. Everyone can watch.
Why restricting it to affiliates of the candidates? Just let everyone watch the count who wants to watch! There is nothing secret about a vote count.
I don't hate it. I just never used it yet. I have still Win2K at home and WinXP on my company's laptop. Even though it is labelled 'Windows Vista capable', and my company is actually the maker of the laptop, it never rolled out Windows Vista to its employees.
Add "copyrights" to the list. Since there are several cases showing how little the "entertainments" industry cares about other people's copyrights. The Sony BMC Rootkit was actually one of those examples. First4Internet used GPLed code and didn't publish the source for their product, and neither did Sony BMC which distributed First4Internet's modifications.
So Sony BMC was infringing on someone else's copyright there.
I am still not upgrading my desktop to XP... Win2000 was installed in 2001 and runs fine :)
And moreso: You open every step of the election to the public, so everyone can watch the distributing of the ballot sheets, the checking of the voter's paper at the election place, the sealing of the voting boxes, the putting of the ballots in the box after voting, the opening of the boxes, the counting of the votes, the transport of the resealed boxes with the votes and the results to the voting offices and the addition of the single results to the final sums.
The only step in the voting process that must not be public is the actual casting of the vote.
It has happened, and it is the reasoning behind the "after death" regulation. Look it up!
But it could be that he knew they were spammers when he just saw them removing the company logo from the building and later on asking the neighbours why they closed shop.
I didn't also know that one of my neighbours was a three time child murderer until a camera team came to interview my wife about them.
This was just an answer to the posting before, where the author claimed that it is possible to detain and abuse them, because they are non-U.S.-citizens and thus don't have rights under the U.S. constitution.
Who exactly of the detainees in Guantanamo did? Convicted because of material support for terrorism (e.g. not mistreating anyone himself, just abbeding and helping) is a single person right now, and he's from Australia.
If you mange to read this aloud with a straight face you are in the books for one of the greatest comedians ever :)
3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does? Everything else I agree with (especially with the irony
Please get your facts straight.
1. About half of the "lovely freedom fighters" are sent home already, and none of them ever got charged with anything. Obviously at least half of them were never "lovely freedom fighters". Whoever they were, they surely aren't THEY beheading innocent people and videotaping them.
Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals.
2. A concentration camp is something else than an extermination camp. Concentration camps were set up and are set up to round up people deemed somehow dangerous without ever telling anyone why exept for some general accusations. Germans were using the term "concentration camp" because it didn't have the horrible sound until it was discovered that the German concentration camps in fact were extermination camps.
3. Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens.
That's where my Third comes in: Reading something without the librarian condoning it was a crime in mediaval monastries. You were still allowed to carry it around. And you had to keep it secret that you were able to read in certain circumstances.
First of all: DRM is some sort of lock.
Second: Reverse engineering keys is as old as creating locks.
Third: Having a librarian in a monastry's library was also some kind of DRM. He was the arbiter who decided (sometimes after consulting with the abbot) which monk was entitled to which book, and when he had to return it.
As Bots are not human, they don't have human rights.
... doesn't that mean that if anyone started mining the salt there, all navigational devices are hosed, because there is no normal anymore to calibrate them?
Evolution would not allow for a jumplike correction of a not so optimal construction, it would rather replace said construction with a completely new one.
For instance the retina of all vertebratae is reversed. The light sensing cells have their nervous connectors at the inside of the eye, thus making it necessary to bundle the nerve fibres and have them cross the retina at a certain place, the so called Blind Spot, to connect them to the brain. That's completely different in eyes coming from the protostomia branch of the animal species, like insects or mollusks. With those the light sensing cells have the nervous connectors at the outside of the eye, thus allowing a direct connection to the brain without crossing the retina.
Evolution wouldn't allow for a mutation that reverses the retina. So this faulty construction will be continued until a species develops a complete replacement for the vertebratae eye (lets say a group of blind vertebratae like some gophers starts a new population on the surface, thus creating the chance for new light sensing cells to develop).
I was just wondering about the argument "We occupied them to give them freedom, they just have to love us for that!" Obviously they don't.