Nudity is part of human existence and is almost never offensive.
(okay, the nudity in "1984" offended me). I would trade 50% of
the violence for 300% more nudity if humans must be titillated in
order to watch TV.
(I assume you're talking about the John Hurt version of 1984
rather than the earlier adaptation which doesn't IIRC, have any
nudity.) Did you honestly think that the nudity was there for
titilation only? It was an integral part of the plot -- sex, at
least gratuitous sex, is completely banned (a sex-crime in fact)
in the world of Oceania and the nudity, in conjunction with the
English countryside, emphasised the disparity between the
mythical freedom of man and the oppression of The Party.
I found it quite ironic that the Salon story, while lamenting the
fact that news outlets sanitise the war, did so itself. The image
of "a wounded and burned Iraqi boy" is a picture of a very famous
boy (Ali, IIRC) who now, as a consequence of the Blitzkreig, has
no arms. Why Salon felt it necessary to ommit this information
and to "sanitise" the descriptions of his injuries as merely
"wonded and burnt" is beyond me.
Equating "file trading" or "file swapping" with copyright
infringement as this story does, is double speak IMO. If you want
to address the problem of copyright infringement then refer to it
explicitely otherwise we risk the demonisation of non-copyright
infringing file trading.
Without reading the existing comments: I recently completed a
degree in the UK and successfully avoided the use of any
Microsoft software, so I would say it's possible to populate a
University computer suite with alternative products. I do admit
to toying with Word when it came to the writing of my final year
dissertion but I found it difficult to achieve the results I
desired. I therefore decided to take the plunge and to learn TeX
(LaTex actually) and immediately preferred it.
I should point out that I majored in Software Engineering and my
preference for vi and the command line is probally ununsual, but
I would suggest that for students of the computer, a
non-Microsoft environment is possible. Perhaps your Grandfather
and his pals could persuade the benefactor to limit the demands
to the computing school.
Your problem is that you aren't reading the right mainstream
press. Information about the World Economic Forum was there to be
found if you wanted to read about it.
I read about it in the mainstream press too. What I didn't
read however, was half the information that was included in the
"leaked" email.
Heh. I'll clarify my point (I admit it wasn't clear); the WEF was
mentioned but the candid opinions of this reporter (and others)
were not. You agree I assume, that there was material in that
email which was somehow not included in conventional reporting.
Information. which I am now glad to be in possession of.
I'm glad this was leaked. Am I the only one who finds it
disturbing that the worlds "ruling classes" can get together,
have a chinwag and for it not to be mentioned in the mainstream
press?
The Bilderberg (sp?) Group is a similar example. In a nutshell,
the self appointed elite get together in some secret location
(different every year) and discuss whatever it is these people
are interested in. That's a fact. I'm not suggesting they eat
babies or worship Satan or anything (although defendents of the
group will try to smear opponents with the lunatic conspiracy
brush), I simply question why the most powerful men on the planet
can get together in secret. What are they discussing? Why are we,
in a democratic country, left out of the loop?
Part of the contract stated that any idea, document,
illustration, patent, trademark, (and the list goes on and on)
that I may come up with, on or off the clock, or on or off the
job site, at any time during my employment, was then the property
soley and exclusively of the company.
I got one of those recently and nearly threw up. I pointed the
offending clause out to the company and they said agreed that "it
could be read that way" but it is not one what they intended.
They assured me that I would be allowed to persue my own
programming projects without fear and if I just sign the contract
everything will be just fine. Hmmm, No thankyou. Send me a
contract that says what you intend and I'll sign that. They
agreed.
Two weeks later, still no contract but I did get a phone call
saying that they no longer needed my services because the
workforce had revolted (I kid you not) set up a company in direct
competition and as a result were "unsure of there future". I'm
not sure whether the described event really happened or whether
it was just a convenient excuse to ignore the request for a
clarified contract. Either way, between intellectual slavery and
talk of revolution, I'm guessing that I'm better off unemployed.
No, the post is quite worthwhile since I am speaking for actual
experience and reading.
Links? If you are too lazy to go to
Google and find Stallman's web site, there is no hope for you.
Ad hominem. None-the-less...
I've read Stallman's political writings but haven't come
across anything that even hints at a belief that people shouldn't
be allowed to make money from their own "work and trades".
Without a link to the paper that you think does present this
belief I can't possibly understand your position.
During the heyday of the protests against free and fair trade a
couple of years ago, I actually went to Stallman's site and read
his editorials straight from the horse's ***.
Links? (without context the rest of your post is worthless)
Stallman himself has an ill-informed and extremist political
agenda. When you get right down to it, he does have a problem
with people making money off of their own work and trades.
This is shameless FUD. Stallman has made money from his own "work
and trades" and I don't ever recall Stallman objecting to anyone
else from doing so either. If you must cower behind anonymity at
least have the decency to exemplify your assertions.
As someone else said, the Russians have manned craft
too. Also, the station has emergency escape pods.
Re:Who gets the float...as if I need to ask
on
Cashless Society
·
· Score: 1
Just like the money in my wallet, you mean?
Is that money available to the banks for investment? If my
money is being used to generate income for the banks it's
reasonable to expect a return in the form of interest. Once
again, the banks using customers money to generate money for
shareholders who most probably aren't customers of my particular bank.
what's the problem?
There isn't one. I was merely responding to a comment.
Re:Who gets the float...as if I need to ask
on
Cashless Society
·
· Score: 1
Huh? Do you think that currently when you have x dollars in YOUR bank account, the bank does not touch that money and keeps it safely secured for you? Or do they loan it out to other customers and earn interest? Of course the latter - that's how banks work!
Yes, that's how banks work. The interest they make
from that money is then passed to the customers in a form
of interest. The OP's point was that if your smart card
money is not in your bank account but in an intermediary
float, then you will not make any interest, despite
the fact that it's still your money.
Basically it followed the flow of technology backwards. Like "The
space shuttle would not have been possible with out an ancient
egyptian plow." and then documents key technologies that make up
a modern civilization.
Found in my email archives...
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet 8.5
inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because
that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built the
US railroads.
Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were
built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the
gauge they used.
Why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the
tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons,
which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if
they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of
the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the
wheel ruts.
So who built those old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe
(and England) were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have
been used ever since. And the ruts? Roman war chariots first made the
initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their
wagon wheels and wagons. Since the chariots were
made for, or by Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel
spacing.
Thus, we have the answer to the original question. The United States
standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original
specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot.
Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are
handed a specification and wonder which horse's rear came up with it, you
may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just
wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war-horses.
And now, the twist to the story...
There's an interesting extension to the story about railroad gauges and
horses' behinds. When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad,
there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel
tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. Thiokol makes the SRBs at
their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs
would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be
shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from
the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to
fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad
track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horse behinds.
So, a major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced
transportation system was determined by the width of a horse's rear! Are we
stuck in a rut?
a lot of people are confused about this phrase, thinking of 'fit'
as being technical superior. in fact the term fit does have
nothing to do with that, but should be interpreted as 'fitted for
a certain purpose'
Hey! That means I'm fit. After all, my purpose is to simply sit
in a big comfy chair, drink coffee, smoke cigarattes and hack
away at a keyboard.:-)
I was asked why I made 12 visits to the coffee machine in one day
(all drinks were free) and why I once spent more than 10 minutes
in the toilet,
I can easily spend 10 minutes evacuating my bowels as I'm sure
many, many other people do. Surely this is a legitimate
explanation. I'm surprised the management didn't expect to see
receipts.
(The law also created new penalties for hackers who literally
kill people over the Internet.)
Ignoring for the moment the practicalities of killing somebody
over the Internet(!?), doesn't the USA already have
murder/manslaughter laws? Why does there need to be special
legislation depending on the method employed? Do you have special
laws for murder with a knife; with a gun; with a mango?
I'm sure I'll never understand this. In the UK recently, there
was a big hoo-ha in the tabloids about the need for "special
laws" governing journalistic integrity for material published on
the Internet. Why? There are already defamation laws.
> Morally: if obtaining trade secrets without the express
> permission of the holder is wrong it shouldn't matter how you
> obtained them. It is the fact that you end up with them that's
> wrong.
If I independentally dream up a way of breaking the DirecTV
encryption, is that wrong? According to you, it is.
Bring on the thought police.
Slashdot Mirror
(I assume you're talking about the John Hurt version of 1984 rather than the earlier adaptation which doesn't IIRC, have any nudity.) Did you honestly think that the nudity was there for titilation only? It was an integral part of the plot -- sex, at least gratuitous sex, is completely banned (a sex-crime in fact) in the world of Oceania and the nudity, in conjunction with the English countryside, emphasised the disparity between the mythical freedom of man and the oppression of The Party.
I found it quite ironic that the Salon story, while lamenting the fact that news outlets sanitise the war, did so itself. The image of "a wounded and burned Iraqi boy" is a picture of a very famous boy (Ali, IIRC) who now, as a consequence of the Blitzkreig, has no arms. Why Salon felt it necessary to ommit this information and to "sanitise" the descriptions of his injuries as merely "wonded and burnt" is beyond me.
Hey, Cool. My first flamebait mod. I'll wear it with a badge of pride as it proves my point.
If you don't like hearing a dissenting opinion, why don't you go live in a country that doesn't allow one? You freepers make me laugh.
Or the two British soldiers who were killed because of a software failure in the Patriot Missile defence system in 2003.
Not important but the letters used to describe DNA sequences are G, A, T and C. It's easy to remember: think Gattaca.
Equating "file trading" or "file swapping" with copyright infringement as this story does, is double speak IMO. If you want to address the problem of copyright infringement then refer to it explicitely otherwise we risk the demonisation of non-copyright infringing file trading.
Without reading the existing comments: I recently completed a degree in the UK and successfully avoided the use of any Microsoft software, so I would say it's possible to populate a University computer suite with alternative products. I do admit to toying with Word when it came to the writing of my final year dissertion but I found it difficult to achieve the results I desired. I therefore decided to take the plunge and to learn TeX (LaTex actually) and immediately preferred it. I should point out that I majored in Software Engineering and my preference for vi and the command line is probally ununsual, but I would suggest that for students of the computer, a non-Microsoft environment is possible. Perhaps your Grandfather and his pals could persuade the benefactor to limit the demands to the computing school.
Clarified here.
I read about it in the mainstream press too. What I didn't read however, was half the information that was included in the "leaked" email.
Heh. I'll clarify my point (I admit it wasn't clear); the WEF was mentioned but the candid opinions of this reporter (and others) were not. You agree I assume, that there was material in that email which was somehow not included in conventional reporting. Information. which I am now glad to be in possession of.
I'm glad this was leaked. Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that the worlds "ruling classes" can get together, have a chinwag and for it not to be mentioned in the mainstream press?
The Bilderberg (sp?) Group is a similar example. In a nutshell, the self appointed elite get together in some secret location (different every year) and discuss whatever it is these people are interested in. That's a fact. I'm not suggesting they eat babies or worship Satan or anything (although defendents of the group will try to smear opponents with the lunatic conspiracy brush), I simply question why the most powerful men on the planet can get together in secret. What are they discussing? Why are we, in a democratic country, left out of the loop?
I got one of those recently and nearly threw up. I pointed the offending clause out to the company and they said agreed that "it could be read that way" but it is not one what they intended. They assured me that I would be allowed to persue my own programming projects without fear and if I just sign the contract everything will be just fine. Hmmm, No thankyou. Send me a contract that says what you intend and I'll sign that. They agreed.
Two weeks later, still no contract but I did get a phone call saying that they no longer needed my services because the workforce had revolted (I kid you not) set up a company in direct competition and as a result were "unsure of there future". I'm not sure whether the described event really happened or whether it was just a convenient excuse to ignore the request for a clarified contract. Either way, between intellectual slavery and talk of revolution, I'm guessing that I'm better off unemployed.
Ad hominem. None-the-less...
I've read Stallman's political writings but haven't come across anything that even hints at a belief that people shouldn't be allowed to make money from their own "work and trades". Without a link to the paper that you think does present this belief I can't possibly understand your position.
Links? (without context the rest of your post is worthless)
This is shameless FUD. Stallman has made money from his own "work and trades" and I don't ever recall Stallman objecting to anyone else from doing so either. If you must cower behind anonymity at least have the decency to exemplify your assertions.
Apologies, but this is just begging for the obligatory Orwell quote.
As someone else said, the Russians have manned craft too. Also, the station has emergency escape pods.
Is that money available to the banks for investment? If my money is being used to generate income for the banks it's reasonable to expect a return in the form of interest. Once again, the banks using customers money to generate money for shareholders who most probably aren't customers of my particular bank.
There isn't one. I was merely responding to a comment.
Yes, that's how banks work. The interest they make from that money is then passed to the customers in a form of interest. The OP's point was that if your smart card money is not in your bank account but in an intermediary float, then you will not make any interest, despite the fact that it's still your money.
Found in my email archives...
Hey! That means I'm fit. After all, my purpose is to simply sit in a big comfy chair, drink coffee, smoke cigarattes and hack away at a keyboard.
I can easily spend 10 minutes evacuating my bowels as I'm sure many, many other people do. Surely this is a legitimate explanation. I'm surprised the management didn't expect to see receipts.
Ignoring for the moment the practicalities of killing somebody over the Internet(!?), doesn't the USA already have murder/manslaughter laws? Why does there need to be special legislation depending on the method employed? Do you have special laws for murder with a knife; with a gun; with a mango?
I'm sure I'll never understand this. In the UK recently, there was a big hoo-ha in the tabloids about the need for "special laws" governing journalistic integrity for material published on the Internet. Why? There are already defamation laws.
> Morally: if obtaining trade secrets without the express > permission of the holder is wrong it shouldn't matter how you > obtained them. It is the fact that you end up with them that's > wrong. If I independentally dream up a way of breaking the DirecTV encryption, is that wrong? According to you, it is. Bring on the thought police.