I notice you didn't cite your comment about the lack of reciprocal respect from the prisoners. Also "reciprocal respect" would in this instance mean the prisoners water-boarding guards, depriving them of sleep, and pissing on their holy book or did you forget what reciprocal means?
If a faith requires you to threaten death and destruction on any who do not worship or treat your holy book in a dignified manner deserve all the scorn and disrespect heaped upon them.
This is your opinion. Also please show me proof these specific prisoners "threaten death and destruction" on anyone and that their faith requires it(plenty of Muslims would disagree). Generally such proof is presented during a trial.
I know there are some prisoners that should not be there and I support the release of all but the most radical prisoners
How do you propose this is done without a trial? And no keeping them all locked up is not supporting the release of the innocents.
They should count themselves lucky that they are allowed to have a Quran in the first place.
Why is that? We here in the USA do not deprive prisoners of the right to read, there is no reason we should to people we incarcerate abroad.
Radical Islam is a scourge all over the world and is responsible for a great deal of today's problems and until the "peaceful" Muslim's eradicate these abominations using all the means and methods at their disposal they do not deserve any respect.
That is your opinion, and a very radical one at that. Was the purpose of the quotes you added to the word peaceful intended to imply that peaceful Muslims do not exist? Why do peaceful Muslims bear the responsibility of eradicating anyone?
a soldier intentionally kicked a Qur'an;
an interrogator intentionally stepped on a Qur'an;
a guard's urine came through an air vent, unintentionally splashing a detainee and his Qur'an;
water balloons thrown by prison guards at one another unintentionally caused a number of Qur'ans to get wet; and
a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Qur'an (whether US personnel were responsible for this act, however, could not be confirmed).
what is to prevent them from committing the same offenses knowing that nothing really bad can happen to them.
nothing really bad, like being forced at gunpoint onto a plane, flown halfway around the world and put into a jail cell while the guards (from the land of the free) for almost a decade(with no trial), occasionally being tortured, and being forced to watch the desecration of their holy books?
---But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money.
Then physically show me what they are being deprived of, offer some proof other than your words which amount to "this is how the system works license invest blah blah"
In your scenario they are depriving the restaurant of a physical object, copying data deprives no one of anything. If they could print out any amount of meals for the cost of running a computer yet did not lower prices (substantially), that could easily be described as greedy.
Nah people were not pointing it out, you were (one person). I'm not a drama queen, and don't care for any attention from this. It is not plagiarized because I didn't take credit for it, I simply linked a story I thought others might find interesting (some did). Also ordinary shit would be way better if the summaries would not routinely make up facts which are not in TFA. I've just been trolled, damn.
I'd say racism is a strawman in this particular instance. Welfare programs are currently being cut so that we can keep providing tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations. Not that racism isn't part of it, I just believe it is only a small part of the problem.
Why the hate for the summary? I didn't editorialize it, and it fairly accurately represents the contents of TFA. I get complaining about an inaccurate summary, but the summary is verbatim from the link (or maybe you didn't notice that). Perhaps a better comment for you to make would have been: "It's better than TFA, that's for sure."
Oh and props to vlm, I also agree his comment was more informative than TFA on the science (not this particular experiment).
1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 171-176.
So evidence obtained through an illegal S&S CAN be used against anyone except for those whom had their rights violated during the search (IE the home/business owners and no one else).
Nope it sure isn't greed to make money off a product or service, but I've never seen any numbers even HINTING that they need more money in order to provide a functional, profitable, and quality service. The fact is you have provided no evidence that the margin is in fact 'quite slim' and thus extra bandwidth cannot be purchased or installed.
What percentage of an ISPs overall operating costs does bandwidth normally represent? With 2000 customers at $29.95 thats just shy of $60,000 monthly. Your "upstream port capacity" costs less than $9,000 per month currently. You forgot one key part of your post, the part which explains why the ISP cannot purchase more bandwidth in order to satisfy its customers.
The problem is always greed, not technical limitations.
I'm all for banning cars inside theaters, churches and restaurants...
(we're not talking about drive-ins)
What I'm getting at is your example is flawed. Mcgrew was not advocating banning pagers/cell phones everywhere, just in places where other people would be disturbed. I also doubt they would allow you to ride a horse into the movie theater, even if you bought an extra ticket.
It is worth noting that 500 million active accounts, does not equal 500 million active people. There are plenty of people with multiple accounts, and plenty of accounts created solely to spam others. Of course it might be the best measurement we have to determine its popularity, but we shouldn't consider each account as a unique person. The same problem occurs when looking at the number of IP addresses accessing Facebook, as many people use multiple devices (or access points) to visit Facebook.
The explosion happened last year actually, but Zuckerberg did not win person of the year in 2009. To to say "2010 was a huge year for social networking" is not inaccurate, however an equally valid statement would be "2010 was no bigger a year for social networking than 2009". If you look at the numbers announced by Facebook it Increased by 200 million users, between September 2009 and July 2010(10 months) the same growth rate between April of 2009 and September 2009.
Cite for my numbers: Facebook.com
Facebook (2010)
Continued growth at almost exactly the same rate as 2009
Facebook launched 'Places' (Foursquare-like service)
Facebook launched 'Questions' (Yahoo answers-like service)
'The social networking' was released to theatres
Wikileaks on the other hand released (in 2010):
The Collateral Murder video.
92,000 Afghanistan war files
400,000 Iraqi war files
251,000 US diplomatic cables
Now regardless of how you view Wikileaks, it would be foolish to say it has influenced events less than Facebook. One caused a United States citizen and military private to be put into solitary confinement for 7 months, without trial (or a pillow), the other produced their own version of existing internet services.
Would this be due to the limited types of plastic which can be used with a reprap, or for some other reason such as the inaccuracy of the machine? I would love to know more about the limitations of these repraps and other CNC machines unfortunately that is beyond the scope of TFA.
Someone reposted your comment on the official runescape forums, with very little context. Tons of people are going to see your comment and think it is a planned future update, without even knowing of this lawsuit.
I'm assuming this was a joke, but I'll respond as though it isn't. I may be nitpicking here, but...
> So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe > but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower. The issue? > might have been (lower) 2 or 3 years ago > Never been lower
What it could have read: So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe, but in looking at the big picture fares are still lower than they have been historically.
The only theater I have heard of in my state (Iowa) that fits your description is in Des Moines. It would be impractical for me to travel to DM every time I wanted to watch a movie. The single local theater, as well as all within a reasonable driving distance are all chain but do not have more than a couple commercials before the trailer. The exception being if you show up early, they have ads for local businesses play (which I'm fine with).
My point is
No free tickets Very rarely free popcorn Only 2 screens Not all towns (especially not small ones) have cheap independent movie theaters
I don't believe Nintendo "paid the price" for not having Mortal Kombat. According to wikipedia the first 3 MK games were released for the SNES the same year as other consoles. Or did you mean not having MK be platform specific to Nintendo was the price they paid??
In other words, as Phillips told us, the President already has an Internet kill switch: he can't shut off a website, but he can shut off any and all wireless or wired Internet access.
So rather than shutting down control of the entire internet (at least in the US) they only turn off the sites they don't want the public to see. Sounds like it would dramatically restrict their power alright.
>> if a cop breaks into your house and finds your stash, its not admissible
Not quite, the evidence would be inadmissible against anyone who's fourth amendment rights had not been violated. For example if your stash was labeled "purchased from Brandon Yoder" with his address included, it could then be used as evidence in court against him. The issue here is Brandon would have no reasonable expectation of privacy (legally) in your home, thus no forth amendment violation (against him). I will cite an earlier section in the same case I previously mentioned.
1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 171-176.
Slashdot Mirror
from the summary: with the Obama administration seeking Supreme Court approval for its use of the devices without a warrant
Yep the republicans are sure responsible for continuing abuses...OH WAIT
If a faith requires you to threaten death and destruction on any who do not worship or treat your holy book in a dignified manner deserve all the scorn and disrespect heaped upon them.
This is your opinion. Also please show me proof these specific prisoners "threaten death and destruction" on anyone and that their faith requires it(plenty of Muslims would disagree). Generally such proof is presented during a trial.
I know there are some prisoners that should not be there and I support the release of all but the most radical prisoners
How do you propose this is done without a trial? And no keeping them all locked up is not supporting the release of the innocents.
They should count themselves lucky that they are allowed to have a Quran in the first place.
Why is that? We here in the USA do not deprive prisoners of the right to read, there is no reason we should to people we incarcerate abroad.
Radical Islam is a scourge all over the world and is responsible for a great deal of today's problems and until the "peaceful" Muslim's eradicate these abominations using all the means and methods at their disposal they do not deserve any respect.
That is your opinion, and a very radical one at that. Was the purpose of the quotes you added to the word peaceful intended to imply that peaceful Muslims do not exist? Why do peaceful Muslims bear the responsibility of eradicating anyone?
Who really gives a shit about their "holy books". As it is the guards wear gloves when handling the Koran
They give a crap, and so should anyone who believes we should treat our prisoners with dignity.
...and before you scoff at a Wikipedia link, check the 17 cites the article gives.
And they didn't/don't always year gloves or show respect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Qur'an_desecration_controversy
a soldier intentionally kicked a Qur'an;
an interrogator intentionally stepped on a Qur'an;
a guard's urine came through an air vent, unintentionally splashing a detainee and his Qur'an;
water balloons thrown by prison guards at one another unintentionally caused a number of Qur'ans to get wet; and
a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Qur'an (whether US personnel were responsible for this act, however, could not be confirmed).
what is to prevent them from committing the same offenses knowing that nothing really bad can happen to them.
nothing really bad, like being forced at gunpoint onto a plane, flown halfway around the world and put into a jail cell while the guards (from the land of the free) for almost a decade(with no trial), occasionally being tortured, and being forced to watch the desecration of their holy books?
Data does not translate into "movie" necessarily.
---But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money.
Then physically show me what they are being deprived of, offer some proof other than your words which amount to "this is how the system works license invest blah blah"
Deprive: to take away possessions from someone
In your scenario they are depriving the restaurant of a physical object, copying data deprives no one of anything. If they could print out any amount of meals for the cost of running a computer yet did not lower prices (substantially), that could easily be described as greedy.
Nah people were not pointing it out, you were (one person). I'm not a drama queen, and don't care for any attention from this. It is not plagiarized because I didn't take credit for it, I simply linked a story I thought others might find interesting (some did). Also ordinary shit would be way better if the summaries would not routinely make up facts which are not in TFA. I've just been trolled, damn.
I'd say racism is a strawman in this particular instance. Welfare programs are currently being cut so that we can keep providing tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations. Not that racism isn't part of it, I just believe it is only a small part of the problem.
Why the hate for the summary? I didn't editorialize it, and it fairly accurately represents the contents of TFA. I get complaining about an inaccurate summary, but the summary is verbatim from the link (or maybe you didn't notice that). Perhaps a better comment for you to make would have been: "It's better than TFA, that's for sure."
Oh and props to vlm, I also agree his comment was more informative than TFA on the science (not this particular experiment).
According to Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969)
1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 171-176.
So evidence obtained through an illegal S&S CAN be used against anyone except for those whom had their rights violated during the search (IE the home/business owners and no one else).
Nope it sure isn't greed to make money off a product or service, but I've never seen any numbers even HINTING that they need more money in order to provide a functional, profitable, and quality service. The fact is you have provided no evidence that the margin is in fact 'quite slim' and thus extra bandwidth cannot be purchased or installed.
What percentage of an ISPs overall operating costs does bandwidth normally represent? With 2000 customers at $29.95 thats just shy of $60,000 monthly. Your "upstream port capacity" costs less than $9,000 per month currently. You forgot one key part of your post, the part which explains why the ISP cannot purchase more bandwidth in order to satisfy its customers.
The problem is always greed, not technical limitations.
I'm all for banning cars inside theaters, churches and restaurants...
(we're not talking about drive-ins)
What I'm getting at is your example is flawed. Mcgrew was not advocating banning pagers/cell phones everywhere, just in places where other people would be disturbed. I also doubt they would allow you to ride a horse into the movie theater, even if you bought an extra ticket.
It is worth noting that 500 million active accounts, does not equal 500 million active people. There are plenty of people with multiple accounts, and plenty of accounts created solely to spam others. Of course it might be the best measurement we have to determine its popularity, but we shouldn't consider each account as a unique person. The same problem occurs when looking at the number of IP addresses accessing Facebook, as many people use multiple devices (or access points) to visit Facebook.
The explosion happened last year actually, but Zuckerberg did not win person of the year in 2009. To to say "2010 was a huge year for social networking" is not inaccurate, however an equally valid statement would be "2010 was no bigger a year for social networking than 2009". If you look at the numbers announced by Facebook it Increased by 200 million users, between September 2009 and July 2010(10 months) the same growth rate between April of 2009 and September 2009.
Cite for my numbers: Facebook.com
Facebook (2010)
Continued growth at almost exactly the same rate as 2009
Facebook launched 'Places' (Foursquare-like service)
Facebook launched 'Questions' (Yahoo answers-like service)
'The social networking' was released to theatres
Wikileaks on the other hand released (in 2010):
The Collateral Murder video.
92,000 Afghanistan war files
400,000 Iraqi war files
251,000 US diplomatic cables
Now regardless of how you view Wikileaks, it would be foolish to say it has influenced events less than Facebook. One caused a United States citizen and military private to be put into solitary confinement for 7 months, without trial (or a pillow), the other produced their own version of existing internet services.
Would this be due to the limited types of plastic which can be used with a reprap, or for some other reason such as the inaccuracy of the machine? I would love to know more about the limitations of these repraps and other CNC machines unfortunately that is beyond the scope of TFA.
yes but he said $300m, at $15 per plex thats roughly 20m plex. The key is he said dollars not kronas.
Someone reposted your comment on the official runescape forums, with very little context. Tons of people are going to see your comment and think it is a planned future update, without even knowing of this lawsuit.
I'm assuming this was a joke, but I'll respond as though it isn't. I may be nitpicking here, but...
> So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe
> but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower.
The issue?
> might have been (lower) 2 or 3 years ago
> Never been lower
What it could have read: So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe, but in looking at the big picture fares are still lower than they have been historically.
but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower.
Except for (according to your post) 2 or 3 years ago...
A more fitting title to this summary would be "Billionaire Donates (at most) 1/14,285th of his money to support Prop 19"
I'm glad actually that he donated, but just be nice if we were told what exactly this $50,000 was going to accomplish.
The only theater I have heard of in my state (Iowa) that fits your description is in Des Moines. It would be impractical for me to travel to DM every time I wanted to watch a movie. The single local theater, as well as all within a reasonable driving distance are all chain but do not have more than a couple commercials before the trailer. The exception being if you show up early, they have ads for local businesses play (which I'm fine with).
My point is
No free tickets
Very rarely free popcorn
Only 2 screens
Not all towns (especially not small ones) have cheap independent movie theaters
I don't believe Nintendo "paid the price" for not having Mortal Kombat. According to wikipedia the first 3 MK games were released for the SNES the same year as other consoles. Or did you mean not having MK be platform specific to Nintendo was the price they paid??
From the site you listed.
In other words, as Phillips told us, the President already has an Internet kill switch: he can't shut off a website, but he can shut off any and all wireless or wired Internet access.
So rather than shutting down control of the entire internet (at least in the US) they only turn off the sites they don't want the public to see. Sounds like it would dramatically restrict their power alright.
>> if a cop breaks into your house and finds your stash, its not admissible
Not quite, the evidence would be inadmissible against anyone who's fourth amendment rights had not been violated. For example if your stash was labeled "purchased from Brandon Yoder" with his address included, it could then be used as evidence in court against him. The issue here is Brandon would have no reasonable expectation of privacy (legally) in your home, thus no forth amendment violation (against him). I will cite an earlier section in the same case I previously mentioned.
1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 171-176.