In a free market, the ultimate objective of every company is monopoly and the untold wealth that position brings. It is a game that everyone must play, but none may be permitted to win.
Then you get Freenet. It's anonyminity is as good as it gets - it's designed for use by dissidents living under oppressive regimes, so tracing either source or destination is all but impossible even if someone could compromise many nodes. The cost of this is performance: You can download whole TV episodes and movies, but at a fraction of the speed of a less paranoid network.
There is biblical backing. The NT version of God judges individuals, but the OT version - the one common to Christianity and Islam - was much more interested in judging en mass. The Noah flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah, the freeing of the slaves as a group and accomponying punishments upon all the people of Egypt collectively, and the many times following that that God either supported or abandoned the whole country of Israel. That version of God didn't go to the trouble of individually judging every last person - he judged countries, or cities, and in one case the world.
Because many religious groups believe in a collective morality - when a person is immoral in the view of their religion, it is nothing less than an attack on all of society. Even if the offender's actions harm no-one but themselves, it is still the duty of the believers to ensure such offensive acts are not committed. Otherwise they will be guilty themselves for not fighting against the evil, and thus giving implicit endorsement.
It's a big part of why American churches are so dedicated to fighting homosexuality. In their view, if two men have sex together then the whole of American society is tainted by the presence of such sinners. This cannot be tolerated. In Indonesia, the same reasoning results in an angry mob believing it is their duty to ensure their society is not tainted in the eyes of their own God by the presence of blasphemers.
Most people have trouble comprehending any distance longer than they can walk in a day. Including me. I can look at the numbers and their ten-to-the-nth, and know what they mean - but to visualise something like that is quite literally beyond human comprehension. Our minds just didn't evolve that way.
It's quite easy to pose an internal consistancy for which the resolutions are rather poor though. It's also very easy to stump the typical Christian on the street - the level of theological knowledge posessed by the average believer is a disgrace, as the more devout Christians keep complaining to each other.
It's really exactly what you would expect from a philsophical view deveoped in a religious society: A mix of secular philosophy with religious ideas. It's easier to seperate them than is the case in most religions.
You missed an option: They might be trying to make an example of him in order to ensure any other atheists know to keep quiet and never speak about their disbelief.
Actually, not quite true. Many state constitutions do specifically require that only Christians can hold public office (And some define Christian in such a way as to exclude denominations unpopular at the time of writing), but there was a supreme court case years ago which ruled that these aspects of the constitutions are incompatible with the first amendment to the US constitution - and the US constitution overrules state constitutions.
It's more a difference in how the situation is looked at. The pro-choicers see humanity as a matter of some type of standards. They can't agree on what it is that makes a human for moral purposes, though most would point to something about the brain, but they do agree there is *something* physical that makes humans different from other animals and thus worthy of protection under the law and a right to life. The pro-lifers though see humans as magic - to them, it isn't about the anatomy of the brain or standards of mental ability. It's magic. Humans are inherently, supernaturally special - and the moment that sperm meets egg, a new soul is created. There is little that two camps like that can say to each other - they have trouble just comprehending each other.
What software? This speculation is over the very-low-power mobile market: Phones and tablets. Ever tried running a PC program on a tablet? Not going to work. Application incompatibility is a given, so it's the perfect chance to abandon backwards compatibility altogether.
There is a risk to that too: If ARM retains the lead in performance per watt, they may start intruding into Intel's high-performance territory in a few years. Given the choice between a a future intel processor that packs eight high-performance cores and takes a hundred watt verses a future ARM design that packs sixty-four medium-performance cores and does it on half the power... suddenly ARM starts to look rather attractive even for servers. Even ARM knows that might be coming - they're designing in 40-bit addressing and virtualisation, features intended to ready their chips for a future in the server room. Intel needs to play the long game, and consider what their decisions may lead to in ten or twenty years.
None. They'll be in a market where they no longer have the technological edge, where their engineers are inexperienced, and where they lack established business contacts. ARM's designs are very well established in the field now, with many manufacturers commited to using chips based on them. It doesn't matter what Intel does, they aren't getting in easily. Unless they can invent some new super-SoC that is far ahead of anything ARM has come up with, they are just at a serious disadvantage... and they aren't going to have any hope of achieving that type of technological leap with x86.
Bombing is easy. The US is good at bombing. The problem is what to do afterwards. If you just bomb and then ignore, you end up with the government reforming or a worse government emerging, and in a few years you're back where you started - except that now the people hate the western world even more, because they lost friends and relatives in the attacks. You could bomb and occupy to control the rebuilding, but that is very expensive - just look at the fiasco in Iraq, how much that cost over how many years. Iran has twice the population. Then there are economic considerations: Iran exports a hell of a lot of oil, and if they stopped pumping the resulting price rise would raise the cost of many businesses so much it'd push the already-struggling global economy back into a full-blown depression. The only way to solve the problem perminantly through force is a scortched earth campaign: Nuke the country so hard that there are no survivers. The international community tends to frown on such actions though, and would likely end up initiating world war three.
In this case, family matters. His father was (still is?) terminally ill. He wanted to see his dying rather one more time while he still had the chance. A story worthy of a cheap soap, but in this case happens to be true.
Yeah, it's a good chip. In performance-per-watt, it'll outdo any other Intel chip with ease. By x86 standards it sips power, even if you include the northbridge. But that is by x86 standards... by ARM, it just can't compete. If Intel really want to succeed in mobile, they'll need to take a big risk: Abandon the thirty-year heritage and backwards compatibility of x86/64.
The standard size if 4.4GB for a 720p, just like it's 700MB for a DVD... for the practical reason that these are exactly the right size to fit onto a DVD-R or CD-R respectively. 1080p doesn't do well at that bitrate, so they usually are 8GB, or just about right for a dual-layer DVD.
They were also all based on resistive screens, as capacitive screens weren't around then (I think - at least I never saw one). Resistive screens are rather uncomfortable to use due to the need to apply considerable pressure, but they do have the advantage of allowing for greater precision with a pen than a cap screen and a squishy finger.
Most of the BDrips I've seen are 8GB, but pirates do tend to go a little higher than they need to with bitrates. They really need to stop doing that, and work on improving encoding technique instead - more and more ISPs are imposing quotas now, and the lower the size the easier to keep under the radar.
Indeed, subject to one caveat. Ordinary DVD writers are incapable of writing an encrypted DVD - they just can't write a CSS key block. It's a restriction built into the firmware and required to licence the DVD specification. I would assume the same is true of blu-ray. You can still press them, which is how encrypted DVDs are made - so the byte-for-byte copy method is available, but only to those who have economy of scale. Organised crime, certainly - any operation good enough to bribe/blackmail their way into access to a pressing plant could churn out copies by the millions with ease, no need to break any encryption - but it isn't something available to the masses of students and amateurs.
Not that they need to, because both DVD and blu-ray encryption has been cracked now anyway. There was originally a countermasure for that in the CPSA architecture, a watermark to be embedded that would tell playback devices to refuse to play if it was from a nonencrypted source, but that part was abandoned due to insurmountable technical obsticles.
The problem isn't the mathematics of encryption, it's engineering. The pirates *have* to have the key to decrypt what they want, because without that key it isn't possible for legitimate viewers to watch either. That means a contest between hardware designers and software programmers trying to wrap the innards of their devices up in more and more layers of anti-tamper measures, and pirates finding new ways to tamper anyway. The advantage is with the pirates.
The three laws of backup:
1. If you don't have it twice, you don't have it.
2. If you can't find it, you don't have it.
3. If you can't read it, you don't have it.
I know nothing about zip encryption, but RAR is a really tough one. The only way you're getting in is to brute force the password, and it uses key stretching.
Slashdot Mirror
In a free market, the ultimate objective of every company is monopoly and the untold wealth that position brings. It is a game that everyone must play, but none may be permitted to win.
"What if someone combined TOR with P2P?"
Then you get Freenet. It's anonyminity is as good as it gets - it's designed for use by dissidents living under oppressive regimes, so tracing either source or destination is all but impossible even if someone could compromise many nodes. The cost of this is performance: You can download whole TV episodes and movies, but at a fraction of the speed of a less paranoid network.
Amendment 1, Article 6... either way, it's a very clear win for the non-Christian. They are both strong grounds for a case.
There is biblical backing. The NT version of God judges individuals, but the OT version - the one common to Christianity and Islam - was much more interested in judging en mass. The Noah flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah, the freeing of the slaves as a group and accomponying punishments upon all the people of Egypt collectively, and the many times following that that God either supported or abandoned the whole country of Israel. That version of God didn't go to the trouble of individually judging every last person - he judged countries, or cities, and in one case the world.
Because many religious groups believe in a collective morality - when a person is immoral in the view of their religion, it is nothing less than an attack on all of society. Even if the offender's actions harm no-one but themselves, it is still the duty of the believers to ensure such offensive acts are not committed. Otherwise they will be guilty themselves for not fighting against the evil, and thus giving implicit endorsement.
It's a big part of why American churches are so dedicated to fighting homosexuality. In their view, if two men have sex together then the whole of American society is tainted by the presence of such sinners. This cannot be tolerated. In Indonesia, the same reasoning results in an angry mob believing it is their duty to ensure their society is not tainted in the eyes of their own God by the presence of blasphemers.
Most people have trouble comprehending any distance longer than they can walk in a day. Including me. I can look at the numbers and their ten-to-the-nth, and know what they mean - but to visualise something like that is quite literally beyond human comprehension. Our minds just didn't evolve that way.
It's quite easy to pose an internal consistancy for which the resolutions are rather poor though. It's also very easy to stump the typical Christian on the street - the level of theological knowledge posessed by the average believer is a disgrace, as the more devout Christians keep complaining to each other.
It's really exactly what you would expect from a philsophical view deveoped in a religious society: A mix of secular philosophy with religious ideas. It's easier to seperate them than is the case in most religions.
You missed an option: They might be trying to make an example of him in order to ensure any other atheists know to keep quiet and never speak about their disbelief.
Actually, not quite true. Many state constitutions do specifically require that only Christians can hold public office (And some define Christian in such a way as to exclude denominations unpopular at the time of writing), but there was a supreme court case years ago which ruled that these aspects of the constitutions are incompatible with the first amendment to the US constitution - and the US constitution overrules state constitutions.
It's more a difference in how the situation is looked at. The pro-choicers see humanity as a matter of some type of standards. They can't agree on what it is that makes a human for moral purposes, though most would point to something about the brain, but they do agree there is *something* physical that makes humans different from other animals and thus worthy of protection under the law and a right to life. The pro-lifers though see humans as magic - to them, it isn't about the anatomy of the brain or standards of mental ability. It's magic. Humans are inherently, supernaturally special - and the moment that sperm meets egg, a new soul is created. There is little that two camps like that can say to each other - they have trouble just comprehending each other.
What software? This speculation is over the very-low-power mobile market: Phones and tablets. Ever tried running a PC program on a tablet? Not going to work. Application incompatibility is a given, so it's the perfect chance to abandon backwards compatibility altogether.
There is a risk to that too: If ARM retains the lead in performance per watt, they may start intruding into Intel's high-performance territory in a few years. Given the choice between a a future intel processor that packs eight high-performance cores and takes a hundred watt verses a future ARM design that packs sixty-four medium-performance cores and does it on half the power... suddenly ARM starts to look rather attractive even for servers. Even ARM knows that might be coming - they're designing in 40-bit addressing and virtualisation, features intended to ready their chips for a future in the server room. Intel needs to play the long game, and consider what their decisions may lead to in ten or twenty years.
None. They'll be in a market where they no longer have the technological edge, where their engineers are inexperienced, and where they lack established business contacts. ARM's designs are very well established in the field now, with many manufacturers commited to using chips based on them. It doesn't matter what Intel does, they aren't getting in easily. Unless they can invent some new super-SoC that is far ahead of anything ARM has come up with, they are just at a serious disadvantage... and they aren't going to have any hope of achieving that type of technological leap with x86.
Bombing is easy. The US is good at bombing. The problem is what to do afterwards. If you just bomb and then ignore, you end up with the government reforming or a worse government emerging, and in a few years you're back where you started - except that now the people hate the western world even more, because they lost friends and relatives in the attacks. You could bomb and occupy to control the rebuilding, but that is very expensive - just look at the fiasco in Iraq, how much that cost over how many years. Iran has twice the population. Then there are economic considerations: Iran exports a hell of a lot of oil, and if they stopped pumping the resulting price rise would raise the cost of many businesses so much it'd push the already-struggling global economy back into a full-blown depression. The only way to solve the problem perminantly through force is a scortched earth campaign: Nuke the country so hard that there are no survivers. The international community tends to frown on such actions though, and would likely end up initiating world war three.
In this case, family matters. His father was (still is?) terminally ill. He wanted to see his dying rather one more time while he still had the chance. A story worthy of a cheap soap, but in this case happens to be true.
Because it is remote, inaccessible and dangerous. That's the fun for the hiking hardcore.
Yeah, it's a good chip. In performance-per-watt, it'll outdo any other Intel chip with ease. By x86 standards it sips power, even if you include the northbridge. But that is by x86 standards... by ARM, it just can't compete. If Intel really want to succeed in mobile, they'll need to take a big risk: Abandon the thirty-year heritage and backwards compatibility of x86/64.
The standard size if 4.4GB for a 720p, just like it's 700MB for a DVD... for the practical reason that these are exactly the right size to fit onto a DVD-R or CD-R respectively. 1080p doesn't do well at that bitrate, so they usually are 8GB, or just about right for a dual-layer DVD.
They were also all based on resistive screens, as capacitive screens weren't around then (I think - at least I never saw one). Resistive screens are rather uncomfortable to use due to the need to apply considerable pressure, but they do have the advantage of allowing for greater precision with a pen than a cap screen and a squishy finger.
Most of the BDrips I've seen are 8GB, but pirates do tend to go a little higher than they need to with bitrates. They really need to stop doing that, and work on improving encoding technique instead - more and more ISPs are imposing quotas now, and the lower the size the easier to keep under the radar.
Indeed, subject to one caveat. Ordinary DVD writers are incapable of writing an encrypted DVD - they just can't write a CSS key block. It's a restriction built into the firmware and required to licence the DVD specification. I would assume the same is true of blu-ray. You can still press them, which is how encrypted DVDs are made - so the byte-for-byte copy method is available, but only to those who have economy of scale. Organised crime, certainly - any operation good enough to bribe/blackmail their way into access to a pressing plant could churn out copies by the millions with ease, no need to break any encryption - but it isn't something available to the masses of students and amateurs.
Not that they need to, because both DVD and blu-ray encryption has been cracked now anyway. There was originally a countermasure for that in the CPSA architecture, a watermark to be embedded that would tell playback devices to refuse to play if it was from a nonencrypted source, but that part was abandoned due to insurmountable technical obsticles.
The problem isn't the mathematics of encryption, it's engineering. The pirates *have* to have the key to decrypt what they want, because without that key it isn't possible for legitimate viewers to watch either. That means a contest between hardware designers and software programmers trying to wrap the innards of their devices up in more and more layers of anti-tamper measures, and pirates finding new ways to tamper anyway. The advantage is with the pirates.
The three laws of backup:
1. If you don't have it twice, you don't have it.
2. If you can't find it, you don't have it.
3. If you can't read it, you don't have it.
I know nothing about zip encryption, but RAR is a really tough one. The only way you're getting in is to brute force the password, and it uses key stretching.