could you elaborate on "spine time to set". how do you identify bones that are "set", bones get less soft up until you die (brittle & harder), and they stop growing when you hit ~25, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "set".
that's very interesting with temperature, i have the same trouble too but the other way.
to me, 100C is the temperature required to boil water, and 0C is the temperature required to freeze water. i come into contact more with these two than with -32C (0F) coldest temperature attainable by mixing ice with salt and 37.5C?(100F) average internal body temperature for healthy human.
I learned everything in metric via my Indiana public school system starting in the 1970s. But it didn't matter - everyday units used in speech are imperial, and that is what dominates.
it needs to be done by the entire country, apparently a significant change is the road signs, lots of people worry about it for very little reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia for a guide on how to do it successfully.
base (x) not base 10, perhaps i should have used Base n. but i do know why we count in base 10, I can also count in base 1, 6, 8, 15 etc. because its logical and based on universal mathematical principals (as far as humans are aware that is.).
my country did it though schools. teach the kids the metric system instead of the imperial and the problem will solve it self. the market will adapt to showing the size based on the target audience, and make sure any new speed signs have "Kph" written on them, most Automotive American dash clusters have both MPH and KPH on the speedometer.
Its much more intuitive for an advanced civilization to have a base(x) counting system with measurement standards being built of the counting system. so aliens are more likely to understand a metric system better than imperial. Aliens should be able to understand the true nature of mathematics and use that to classify sizes, not the average size of a foot.
However i disagree with America conforming "just because". we haven't even moved to a base 10 timing metric yet, who are we to judge?
Pfft i say. That's just playing up the stereotypes.
that's like saying "we don't consider those under the age of 18 to have responsibility, so when dealing with a 15year old warlord in Africa we don't listen to his threats of "we will shoot at you" because he is only 15.
Or how about the 10 year old egyptian kings? no one takes them seriously did they.
I'd dare say Saddam has a good idea of the authority a woman can hold in America, regardless of if he approves of it he will understand it.
and yet I bet you posted this comment from your home PC, with an IP address that can be linked directly to you. if you really want to stay off the grid you should use an anonymous internet browsing method like Tor. (proxies are no good, they all have clauses saying they will give up information to the government if they provide a warrant, which is as good as saying they will give up the information to the KGB / Gadaffi about who you are (the Taliban was also the government of Afghanistan before Americans started shooting at them)).
also, having your drivers license not registered to the correct address is illegal. if you are found deliberately misleading the government you could face jail. and if i was the government you've given me enough information to find out who you are. (with a couple of warrants pushed to the right service providers that is.).
That would reasonably be seen as an attempt at disproving the difference, by presenting an example where there isn't one.
i didn't see it like that at all.
I think its a reasonable question where a private company has an authority to coerce on behalf of the government. a contractor isn't bound by the same responsibilities as a government department. Over site and access isn't as easy when you contract, but cost and plausible deny-ability makes it worth while for the government.
however, citizens shouldn't accept a 3rd party contractor acting on behalf of the government the right to coercion on citizens.
Xerox, Kleenex, Sharpie, etc.
Doesn't surprise me that some would call the Samsung Galaxy S an iPhone, some call their cannon photocopier a "Xerox machine"
this case should get thrown out, the SGS has completely different hardware to a 3gs. the OS is android so that's hardly Samsungs fault, and the only things that are really similar are overall shape, but when you look closer you can see lots of subtle differences in design.
this is like ford building a car and then suing everyone who makes a car that follows the same design layout (steering wheel in front, 4 tires & 4 doors)
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,
because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited".
so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).
Seconded. just goes to show that the government doesn't give a shit because they will never be personally persecuted for it, (or even have any idea on what copyright is).
We as consumers are equally fortunate when dealing with companies. We get choices too. It IS our right to ask if companies take our privacy seriously.
the system where the consumer is as "equally fortunate" only works when consumers are able to make informed choices.
The problem is that companies by their nature are as dishonest as the law will allow them to be, so its really up to the government to ensure that consumers are indeed informed on relevant information. but when its the government who directly benefit from the dishonesty, then its no longer "equal footing", the odds are stacked against the consumer.
as apposed to "i don't want flash on my device because i like limiting my options." SWIDT?
everyone agrees that flash is not an ideal web add-on, especially in comparison to html5. but I'd much prefer to have the option to use flash when required than not. But i guess that's why I'm an android user not an iphone user. i like having the control and the responsibility, even if its at the expense of really nice design (which is what apple are really good at). everything (for me at least) doesn't need to "just work", as long as the trade off is flexibility.
to me, its the same as microsoft saying "we no longer support opening.csv files into excel because it should have been done in a database". they are right, but why deliberately limit yourself when there is a demand?
the real reason why flash isn't on iOS though is because it doesn't conform to the apple design principles of "so easy any one can do it, and so smooth everyone will love it", everything is about having the best experience (which, imo, is a long overdue principal and works really well). the very nature of flash makes having it available on a touch based device question the experience (is it going to be usable, is it going to be slow etc.).
For Android, not having the problem of trying to sell a perfect experience but instead having a focus on flexibility, having flash is ideal.
For apple to impliment flash, they would have to make a sacrifice to the "high quality image" that they have worked so hard to create. Which, imo, probably isn't worth it for Apple. I won't listen to PR that say "you shouldn't have flash on websites anyway" though. that's just trying to push the blame of lack of compatibility onto the content providers (which were providing flash content well and truly before smart phones).
Manning was never in a position to know what is needed to be released or not or how it could effect ongoing relations.
i'd say he would have a better idea than most of the keyboard warriors on here considering he has seen the full list and (i'm assuming) you and i haven't.
If he was careless, in what way could that have been improved and not had the same impact? easy to say "he was careless" but he really didn't have another option to do the right thing.
also, who says that the lives that are put in danger from the release are worth any more than the lives that are lost and covered by not releasing?
obviously he is still a traitor to the American government, this makes him as bad (in my books) as a traitor to the Chinese government.
Copyright Infringment is breaking American law, just like posting anti-government propaganda is against the law in china.
however i'm yet to see china pulling domains off the WORLD WIDE WEB because it didn't like the content (which was hosted in a different country, viewed by people in different countries). they may block content to their own citizens, but at least they don't fuck around with everyone else's internet.
Re: shotgun argument, it's really falling apart as its not a good analog, but i'll try and roll anyway.
purchasing a shotgun and intending to use it in close quarters would not justify the modification (legally) when the option to purchase a smaller weapon would have been required for the task. when you purchase the weapon they have an opportunity to run background checks etc, and only certain type of people would be able to purchase a handgun where as some may only be legally entitled to purchase a shotgun, (TBH i don't really know the laws surrounding gun ownership in America, Australias system is very different).
so the system is designed to have a barrier to gaining access to a concealable weapon at the point of purchasing the weapon, not at the hardware store. This justifies an exception to being able to modify your own effects in the name of better gun control. I'll say again The only justification in stopping people from modifying eqiupment that they own is if there is a significant risk to life, same reason why its illegal to tamper with airbags or seat belts. The ps3 in no way shape or form can possibly apply for this exception with their device.
I wouldn't say there's no reason. A lot of people *are* going to mod their consoles in order to pirate games. Other people are going to cheat (which, incidentally, makes playing online less fun for people like me who stay honest). So, there's a reason. Just not a good enough one to justify what they're doing.
oh, they think they have a valid reason. but there isn't any exception that would allow them to go against the law of "if i purchase something, i can do with it what i chose".
Retrospectively?
as in, after they purchased the weapon, they then change it. the court would say there is no valid reason to modify it when there is apropriately sized weapons available with all the required checks and safety measures in place.
i don't think it makes much difference though, we both agree on the same thing, its just the semantics of the analogy.
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water.
Never said it was. I was even careful to avoid the term "illegal" when referring to modifying play-station hardware.
then its not relevent, if you modify something that causes it to break the law (like extracting DMT from plant bark) you get in trouble by the police. the owner of the DMT plant has no need to pursue you in court and in fact this would be a conflict of interest. Its a 3rd party enforcing the law, not the first party, this is important.
Ok, and the next time I describe a handgun you can legally own, I'll call it a weapon you can conceal.
this is fair enough, if your legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon, then there should be no problem having or making a saw off shotgun. and ideally this is how the system would work. however as there is no legitimate reason to change the class of your weapon retrospectively and that policing the changes is much more difficult than policing the release of concield weapons, then they have a legitimate reason to justify disallowing modifications.
I'm taking the principled stance that both should be ok, because they're your property to do with as you wish.
don't get me wrong, i have the same personal stance, but i certainly understand the EXCEPTION to being able to modify in the case of a shotgun, where as there is simply NO REASON to have the EXCEPTION for a PS3.
that sounds like a fantastic idea. say for whoever is willing to run their camera, they get the "stolen vehicle reclaiming fee" dropped if they need to make a claim, you would also be able to have access to all your own footage to work out whos at fault in a traffic accident.
so it would be an opt-in surveillance system, if you don't opt in, your cars numberplate wouldn't return anything because you hadn't opted into having its data entered in the database (by contacting them and having them help look for your car is opting in to have your data on their database), the biggest pitfall is giving government access to the information, which would have been unavoidable.
really? could you show me on a graph where a decrease in crime rates have occurred? because as far as i can tell the number of people being incarcerated per capita has increased in recent years. it would be interesting to see a graph where crime is being reduces yet yearly incarceration is on the rise.
On the other hand I can't help but think that people *should* register their cars (and have insurance) and if they don't, they should have to pay a fine.
totally agree with you, except for the fact that no where in the post was it mentioned that the car was ever driven on the road, which i think makes a really good point that should be pivotal to the issue at hand.
A lot of laws are set up today to assist with stopping criminal behaviour before its criminal. EG, your not allowed to be publicly intoxicated. not because being drunk(itself) is detrimental to society, but because public drunkeness often leads to other crimes like violence and outward aggression. The idea is that if someone is being obviously drunk and belligerent, with a high likely hood of them committing further offenses, they can be charged before having to wait for them to commit an actual offense to get them of the street. The only safegard to this is that the police are having trouble keeping up with the obvious crimes to use the "public drunkeness" charge on, so most people get away with it by not attracting police attention. this works very well in practice because "the police" aren't going to be persueing people who aren't drawing their attention, which are the people that "public intoxication" is still legally a crime but shouldn't be.
I don't know about you, but I've been drunk in public before. and i've never been close to committing a crime due to that drunkenness, so its not exactly legally fair for me to be considered a criminal because I'm drunk after a work party just trying to get home.
now, if a machine is deciding who to pay attention to, then the laws and penalties need to be re-addressed as its not only the "problem people" that draw police attention and have the list of available charges against them but everyone, at all times, always. If you don't re-address the laws then you've basically allowed a massive increase in police powers to enforce laws that may have become unjustifiable because of the increased surveillance.
So even if you think the government won't abuse their power, you should still take surveillance law very seriously and recognize that its not a simple ad-hoc solution but requires re-addressing of a significant amount of law.
But lets take a long hard look at yourself America, you have more people in prison (both per capita, and overall population) than any other country including those with draconian surveillance methods like the UK, China, North Korea, Russia, etc.
And your trying to make it _easier_ to identify more people as criminal? 90% of the American population not enough?
You can swap the hard drive, for example. It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
"device that supports piracy" I like it. next time I'm talking about a computer, That's what I'm going to refer to it as.
the problem with the shotgun analogy is that the modification rule would have been set as a safety exception. there are reasonable safety grounds why the shotguns modification should be limited, this does not indicate that everything should have a limited modification allowance. Weapons are the exception to the rule of "your equipment is yours to do what you like with" for a very good reason. Is piracy really a good enough reason to have an exception?
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a whole lot less than i thought. significantly less than the defense budget of most countries at least. (over 30 years, 5.6billion a year.)
could you elaborate on "spine time to set". how do you identify bones that are "set", bones get less soft up until you die (brittle & harder), and they stop growing when you hit ~25, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "set".
to me, 100C is the temperature required to boil water, and 0C is the temperature required to freeze water. i come into contact more with these two than with -32C (0F) coldest temperature attainable by mixing ice with salt and 37.5C?(100F) average internal body temperature for healthy human.
I learned everything in metric via my Indiana public school system starting in the 1970s. But it didn't matter - everyday units used in speech are imperial, and that is what dominates.
it needs to be done by the entire country, apparently a significant change is the road signs, lots of people worry about it for very little reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia for a guide on how to do it successfully.
I've made no assumptions.
base (x) not base 10, perhaps i should have used Base n.
but i do know why we count in base 10, I can also count in base 1, 6, 8, 15 etc. because its logical and based on universal mathematical principals (as far as humans are aware that is.).
that's funny, because in ours (Australia uses metric) our drug dealers sells in ounces and pounds.
my country did it though schools. teach the kids the metric system instead of the imperial and the problem will solve it self. the market will adapt to showing the size based on the target audience, and make sure any new speed signs have "Kph" written on them, most Automotive American dash clusters have both MPH and KPH on the speedometer.
Its much more intuitive for an advanced civilization to have a base(x) counting system with measurement standards being built of the counting system. so aliens are more likely to understand a metric system better than imperial. Aliens should be able to understand the true nature of mathematics and use that to classify sizes, not the average size of a foot.
However i disagree with America conforming "just because". we haven't even moved to a base 10 timing metric yet, who are we to judge?
Pfft i say. That's just playing up the stereotypes.
that's like saying "we don't consider those under the age of 18 to have responsibility, so when dealing with a 15year old warlord in Africa we don't listen to his threats of "we will shoot at you" because he is only 15.
Or how about the 10 year old egyptian kings? no one takes them seriously did they.
I'd dare say Saddam has a good idea of the authority a woman can hold in America, regardless of if he approves of it he will understand it.
and yet I bet you posted this comment from your home PC, with an IP address that can be linked directly to you. if you really want to stay off the grid you should use an anonymous internet browsing method like Tor. (proxies are no good, they all have clauses saying they will give up information to the government if they provide a warrant, which is as good as saying they will give up the information to the KGB / Gadaffi about who you are (the Taliban was also the government of Afghanistan before Americans started shooting at them)).
also, having your drivers license not registered to the correct address is illegal. if you are found deliberately misleading the government you could face jail. and if i was the government you've given me enough information to find out who you are. (with a couple of warrants pushed to the right service providers that is.).
however, citizens shouldn't accept a 3rd party contractor acting on behalf of the government the right to coercion on citizens.
For 1 very good reason: It's not in the financial interest of the contractor to encourage peace in the region.
That would reasonably be seen as an attempt at disproving the difference, by presenting an example where there isn't one.
i didn't see it like that at all.
I think its a reasonable question where a private company has an authority to coerce on behalf of the government. a contractor isn't bound by the same responsibilities as a government department. Over site and access isn't as easy when you contract, but cost and plausible deny-ability makes it worth while for the government.
however, citizens shouldn't accept a 3rd party contractor acting on behalf of the government the right to coercion on citizens.
Xerox, Kleenex, Sharpie, etc. Doesn't surprise me that some would call the Samsung Galaxy S an iPhone, some call their cannon photocopier a "Xerox machine" this case should get thrown out, the SGS has completely different hardware to a 3gs. the OS is android so that's hardly Samsungs fault, and the only things that are really similar are overall shape, but when you look closer you can see lots of subtle differences in design. this is like ford building a car and then suing everyone who makes a car that follows the same design layout (steering wheel in front, 4 tires & 4 doors)
To the best of my knowledge loaning a legal CD/DVD to someone is not illegal,
because the big scary MPAA writing saying "unauthorised DISTRIBUTION, copying or selling of copyright protected material is prohibited". so yes, it is illegal. it isn't, however, persecuted very often (ever?).
Seconded. just goes to show that the government doesn't give a shit because they will never be personally persecuted for it, (or even have any idea on what copyright is).
We as consumers are equally fortunate when dealing with companies. We get choices too. It IS our right to ask if companies take our privacy seriously.
the system where the consumer is as "equally fortunate" only works when consumers are able to make informed choices.
The problem is that companies by their nature are as dishonest as the law will allow them to be, so its really up to the government to ensure that consumers are indeed informed on relevant information. but when its the government who directly benefit from the dishonesty, then its no longer "equal footing", the odds are stacked against the consumer.
I like what you did there.
as apposed to "i don't want flash on my device because i like limiting my options." SWIDT?
.csv files into excel because it should have been done in a database". they are right, but why deliberately limit yourself when there is a demand?
everyone agrees that flash is not an ideal web add-on, especially in comparison to html5. but I'd much prefer to have the option to use flash when required than not. But i guess that's why I'm an android user not an iphone user. i like having the control and the responsibility, even if its at the expense of really nice design (which is what apple are really good at). everything (for me at least) doesn't need to "just work", as long as the trade off is flexibility.
to me, its the same as microsoft saying "we no longer support opening
the real reason why flash isn't on iOS though is because it doesn't conform to the apple design principles of "so easy any one can do it, and so smooth everyone will love it", everything is about having the best experience (which, imo, is a long overdue principal and works really well). the very nature of flash makes having it available on a touch based device question the experience (is it going to be usable, is it going to be slow etc.).
For Android, not having the problem of trying to sell a perfect experience but instead having a focus on flexibility, having flash is ideal.
For apple to impliment flash, they would have to make a sacrifice to the "high quality image" that they have worked so hard to create. Which, imo, probably isn't worth it for Apple. I won't listen to PR that say "you shouldn't have flash on websites anyway" though. that's just trying to push the blame of lack of compatibility onto the content providers (which were providing flash content well and truly before smart phones).
Manning was never in a position to know what is needed to be released or not or how it could effect ongoing relations.
i'd say he would have a better idea than most of the keyboard warriors on here considering he has seen the full list and (i'm assuming) you and i haven't.
If he was careless, in what way could that have been improved and not had the same impact? easy to say "he was careless" but he really didn't have another option to do the right thing.
also, who says that the lives that are put in danger from the release are worth any more than the lives that are lost and covered by not releasing?
obviously he is still a traitor to the American government, this makes him as bad (in my books) as a traitor to the Chinese government.
Copyright Infringment is breaking American law, just like posting anti-government propaganda is against the law in china.
however i'm yet to see china pulling domains off the WORLD WIDE WEB because it didn't like the content (which was hosted in a different country, viewed by people in different countries). they may block content to their own citizens, but at least they don't fuck around with everyone else's internet.
purchasing a shotgun and intending to use it in close quarters would not justify the modification (legally) when the option to purchase a smaller weapon would have been required for the task. when you purchase the weapon they have an opportunity to run background checks etc, and only certain type of people would be able to purchase a handgun where as some may only be legally entitled to purchase a shotgun, (TBH i don't really know the laws surrounding gun ownership in America, Australias system is very different).
so the system is designed to have a barrier to gaining access to a concealable weapon at the point of purchasing the weapon, not at the hardware store. This justifies an exception to being able to modify your own effects in the name of better gun control. I'll say again The only justification in stopping people from modifying eqiupment that they own is if there is a significant risk to life, same reason why its illegal to tamper with airbags or seat belts. The ps3 in no way shape or form can possibly apply for this exception with their device.
I wouldn't say there's no reason. A lot of people *are* going to mod their consoles in order to pirate games. Other people are going to cheat (which, incidentally, makes playing online less fun for people like me who stay honest). So, there's a reason. Just not a good enough one to justify what they're doing.
oh, they think they have a valid reason. but there isn't any exception that would allow them to go against the law of "if i purchase something, i can do with it what i chose".
Retrospectively?
as in, after they purchased the weapon, they then change it. the court would say there is no valid reason to modify it when there is apropriately sized weapons available with all the required checks and safety measures in place.
i don't think it makes much difference though, we both agree on the same thing, its just the semantics of the analogy.
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water. Never said it was. I was even careful to avoid the term "illegal" when referring to modifying play-station hardware.
then its not relevent, if you modify something that causes it to break the law (like extracting DMT from plant bark) you get in trouble by the police. the owner of the DMT plant has no need to pursue you in court and in fact this would be a conflict of interest. Its a 3rd party enforcing the law, not the first party, this is important.
Ok, and the next time I describe a handgun you can legally own, I'll call it a weapon you can conceal.
this is fair enough, if your legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon, then there should be no problem having or making a saw off shotgun. and ideally this is how the system would work. however as there is no legitimate reason to change the class of your weapon retrospectively and that policing the changes is much more difficult than policing the release of concield weapons, then they have a legitimate reason to justify disallowing modifications.
I'm taking the principled stance that both should be ok, because they're your property to do with as you wish.
don't get me wrong, i have the same personal stance, but i certainly understand the EXCEPTION to being able to modify in the case of a shotgun, where as there is simply NO REASON to have the EXCEPTION for a PS3.
that sounds like a fantastic idea. say for whoever is willing to run their camera, they get the "stolen vehicle reclaiming fee" dropped if they need to make a claim, you would also be able to have access to all your own footage to work out whos at fault in a traffic accident. so it would be an opt-in surveillance system, if you don't opt in, your cars numberplate wouldn't return anything because you hadn't opted into having its data entered in the database (by contacting them and having them help look for your car is opting in to have your data on their database), the biggest pitfall is giving government access to the information, which would have been unavoidable.
really? could you show me on a graph where a decrease in crime rates have occurred? because as far as i can tell the number of people being incarcerated per capita has increased in recent years. it would be interesting to see a graph where crime is being reduces yet yearly incarceration is on the rise.
whoosh.
On the other hand I can't help but think that people *should* register their cars (and have insurance) and if they don't, they should have to pay a fine.
totally agree with you, except for the fact that no where in the post was it mentioned that the car was ever driven on the road, which i think makes a really good point that should be pivotal to the issue at hand.
A lot of laws are set up today to assist with stopping criminal behaviour before its criminal. EG, your not allowed to be publicly intoxicated. not because being drunk(itself) is detrimental to society, but because public drunkeness often leads to other crimes like violence and outward aggression. The idea is that if someone is being obviously drunk and belligerent, with a high likely hood of them committing further offenses, they can be charged before having to wait for them to commit an actual offense to get them of the street. The only safegard to this is that the police are having trouble keeping up with the obvious crimes to use the "public drunkeness" charge on, so most people get away with it by not attracting police attention. this works very well in practice because "the police" aren't going to be persueing people who aren't drawing their attention, which are the people that "public intoxication" is still legally a crime but shouldn't be.
I don't know about you, but I've been drunk in public before. and i've never been close to committing a crime due to that drunkenness, so its not exactly legally fair for me to be considered a criminal because I'm drunk after a work party just trying to get home.
now, if a machine is deciding who to pay attention to, then the laws and penalties need to be re-addressed as its not only the "problem people" that draw police attention and have the list of available charges against them but everyone, at all times, always. If you don't re-address the laws then you've basically allowed a massive increase in police powers to enforce laws that may have become unjustifiable because of the increased surveillance.
So even if you think the government won't abuse their power, you should still take surveillance law very seriously and recognize that its not a simple ad-hoc solution but requires re-addressing of a significant amount of law.
But lets take a long hard look at yourself America, you have more people in prison (both per capita, and overall population) than any other country including those with draconian surveillance methods like the UK, China, North Korea, Russia, etc.
And your trying to make it _easier_ to identify more people as criminal? 90% of the American population not enough?
You can swap the hard drive, for example. It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
"device that supports piracy" I like it. next time I'm talking about a computer, That's what I'm going to refer to it as. the problem with the shotgun analogy is that the modification rule would have been set as a safety exception. there are reasonable safety grounds why the shotguns modification should be limited, this does not indicate that everything should have a limited modification allowance. Weapons are the exception to the rule of "your equipment is yours to do what you like with" for a very good reason. Is piracy really a good enough reason to have an exception?
also, its not the company that made the shotgun that will get you into legal hot water.