then public labs should. This is a matter of public health, therefore the state should fund the research. If only because, if this molecule has potential, the taxpayer money they put into the research will be peanuts compared to what health care providers will have to pay for licensed medicines. I.e., for the state, this is a matter of making long-term economies, not even a humanitarian pursuit. But of course, our dear leaders have to be willing to pay a miser upfront to avoid paying billions to pharmaceutical companies 10 or 20 years down the line.
I just don't understand this country anymore: have people completely forgotten we have (or should have) public labs to do the kind of research short-sighted profit-oriented companies won't do? apart for military technologies, it seems society has decided to put its future advances squarely and solely in the hands of the corporate world. This is sad.
I watch the video and it sounds like a lot of PR talk and buzzwords to me.
At the end of the day, assuming the computers and networks between you and the credit union are secure (they're not, but let's forget that), the only problem they have is to make sure you're Mr. John Doe, legitimate holder of the account you're trying to access ("who you are"). Period. All that matrix and multi-identification stuff is just a variation on the same theme.
Up to now, "what you know" (a password) was assumed to be representative of "who you are", with the single point of failure that someone else might be able to know what you know as well (being your password that's too simple, or someone looking over your shoulder while you type in the password). This was a reasonable assumption because you can't separate someone with this someone's knowledge.
If they want to do better than that, they'll have to use biometrics (DNA analysis, fingerprinting, iris scanning, etc...) or some sort of permanent electronic tagging (RFID implant). That's plain as day. So if your credit union isn't providing you a fingerprint scanner or telling you to go to your local vet to get a RFID implanted, you can safely assume that their new ultra-super-duper solutions are a variation of what's already been implemented before, perhaps a little better, perhaps not, but definitely a lot of PR fluff.
If HUMAN FEMALES really wanted to advertise fertility they have their nose light up and breasts double in size.
It's called "plastic surgery" (at least for the breast size), and it's designed to advertise fertility at some unconscious level. As for the nose thing, only female clown performers do that to attract male clowns.
but experimentally i've verified that i'm more likely to end up in a bed with a cute girl than someone with unfortunate looks.
Actually your preferences in girls are entirely societal: I'm assuming you're a westerner who prefers slim, tall, magazine-cover-beautiful girls, but if you were an animal, you'd opt for a fat, squat, muscular-looking female who would be statistically more able to have your babies and care for them.
Also, i've noted that if she grabs my package, i stop caring about looks until after the deed is done, so maybe it's a wash.
That on the other hand reconnects you with your animal ancestry:)
does it really mean anything for us humans? I mean, if women actually attracted more men when they look attractive, then we wouldn't have had a surge of babies 9 months after the northeast power blackout, quite the contrary.
I'm sure human being still have a tendency to "display" their fertility, by looks or by scents, on some unconscious level, simply because we're just really clever monkeys, but I'm not certain humans are receptive to these signals anymore, and if they are, psychological and intelligent decision-making processes in the brain probably supercede animal instincts.
The point is that "EU cash" here refers to Entropia Universe cash, more commonly known as PED (Project Entropia Dollars). The fixed rate between these currencies is 1 USD = 10 PED.
Good luck getting somebody declared a resident/citizen/dual citizen though. My body is in France? Why is that a problem, etc, etc.
Well that's the interesting bit isn't it? these banking licenses might allow a virtual realm to pursue statehood, thus posing a whole new set of problems and potentially creating many legal precedents. The issues at stake I guess could be the challenging of the definition of residency and citizenship, where it could be necessary to disassociate the fact that someone is physically present somewhere, and mentally present somewhere else as well, for extended periods of time, etc...
Quite frankly, perhaps I'm just dreaming, maybe these banking licenses don't stand a chance of proving anything at all if the virtual world really wanted to become a state, I am not a lawyer thank goodness, but I've been waiting for a virtual state to come into existence for a long time, and I think it'll happen some day.
These are exactly what you think they are: in-game bankers can transfer Entropia funds directly to your real-world bank account as real world cash.
So essentially, the Entropia "world" has been given the right to manage a fiduciary mass. A virtual world and a virtual fiduciary system, but a real one nonetheless because it has currency rate with real greenbacks.
Consider the definition of a state: statehood for an entity as having:
- a territory: Entropia is virtual real-estate, but it's not so far-fetched to say it's a real territory, since people use its virtual space - a population: Entropia has gamers - a government: the game maker I suppose - the ability to mint money: well, it has a currency now, backed by a currency rate recognized by another state - the ability to print its own stamps: that would be easy to implement, with an in-game certified email system separate from regular email - the capacity to have relationships with other, recognized states: it does de-facto, since an already recognized state recognized its currency
So, I think in international law, Entropia could claim statehood. Their position would be even less shaky than, for example, Sealand. This is a very exciting and new development indeed.
Out of curiosity, does that mean you believe that a morally wrong action was still the correct action to take?
Yes, a morally wrong action may be the correct action to take if you're forced to do it to prevent something morally worse. In the case of WW2, it was morally wrong to go to war, but morally worse to let the Germans invade Europe. In that respect, the Allies were "less wrong" than the Axis, which makes none of it okay of course, but sometimes you're cornered and you have to take choices.
When you're not forced into action however, as in the case of the Iraq war, going to war should be considered an international crime.
WWII was also a horrific event. Do you think that movies based upon it, such as Saving Private Ryan are shameless exploitations of the event? Should they all have been pulled? Should all the war games ever made be pulled? All games in which any person harms another person?
No. I think all these games and movies have a right to exist, including the Columbine game, or even an Al Quaeda simulator if there was such a game. They have the right to exist because if they don't, then at some point or another, some other form of speech will be curtailed, and this isn't acceptable. The whole point of free speech is to accept all speech, including the horrific and shameful ones, for the sake of the others.
WhatI'm upset about is the people getting angry of the exploitation of an event involving several kids shot up, but completely failing to even take notice of the exploitation of an event involving tens of millions of horrific deaths because the exploitation glorifies the side their countries was on. Just try to make a game where you incarnate a German SS going on a shooting spree, and you'll quickly draw the ire of the entire nation. But when you propose gamers to incarnate a G.I. going on a shooting spree, then it becomes alright.
That's the dual morality system that people have that makes me angry, and the media and entertainment industries that perpetuate this dual morality.
In the case of war, the argument can be made that it is morally correct to try and overthrow Nazi's.
That's where you're wrong. War is morally wrong, period. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to war against the Nazis, what I'm trying to point out is that exploiting the human misery that WW2 in a game 60 years later is no more acceptable that exploiting a bunch of kids getting machine-gunned in a school recently. Probably less so: WW2 is a world-wide stain on humanity, whereas Columbine is, despite all its horror, a local event.
Of course, any game based on something as horrific as the Columbine shooting is at best bad taste, at worst shameless exploitation of the event to get in the press, and people should rightfully be angry, and the game should be pulled out.
But for some reason I fail to understand, there are dozens of games glorifying WW2 combats, or simulating the Iraq war. Millions have died during WW2, and hundred of thousands died in Iraq and continue to do so. Yet nobody finds reasons to be upset when you incarnate a G.I. killing German soldiers in a game. It's all perfectly normal to them.
My grandfather died in WW2, I never knew him. He was fighting for the "good guys" (the allies), but that didn't prevent my dad from crying often when he thought about him. War simulation games make me just as angry as this stupid Columbine RPG, and people who get their pants in a knot over the Columbine game then go play the virtual soldier ten minutes later make me sick, because they're biased, politically correct idiots with short memories...
The truth is, Opera has such small share of the browser market that it just doesn't matter if the entire world knows about a remote exec hole or not: no cracker or pirate is going to code for such a small fish.
What's more, by not disclosing vulnerabilities and coding being the back of the users, it just makes the development team look like they've acquired their development habbits at Microsoft.
No DRM emerges as a winner? of course not, nobody wins with DRM, not even the record companies or the artists, as consumers hate it and it drives sales away...
Ok, I download mp3s as much as the next guy, and I never pay a dime to the record companies, so I'm all for piracy and I freely admit I rip these guys off.
However, your line of reasoning sounds like you're trying to justify stealing. You're saying: "I had these CDs, I lost them, so I'm entitled to a new copy". But tell me, if someone steals your car, does that give you the right to take someone else's to replace it because you had already paid for the car? Or perhaps a better analogy, since comparing stealing data and stealing physical objects isn't quite the same thing: say you lost a good book you hadn't finished: does that give you the right to download the content of the book somewhere and print it off? I think not.
Admit it man: you steal music just like the rest of us. Just admit it, it'll be better than trying to come up with reasons why you feel you're entitled to steal it.
AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that being on the correct side of the law in Russia means being friend with Putin or someone close to Putin. Or at least to business that Putin doesn't care about.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I broke the link. Here it is: polyglot programs
Did you ever run into the problem where you knew how to do something in one programming language, but really needed to do it in another?
There are also programs that can be compiled or run by several different compilers/interpreters:
then public labs should. This is a matter of public health, therefore the state should fund the research. If only because, if this molecule has potential, the taxpayer money they put into the research will be peanuts compared to what health care providers will have to pay for licensed medicines. I.e., for the state, this is a matter of making long-term economies, not even a humanitarian pursuit. But of course, our dear leaders have to be willing to pay a miser upfront to avoid paying billions to pharmaceutical companies 10 or 20 years down the line.
I just don't understand this country anymore: have people completely forgotten we have (or should have) public labs to do the kind of research short-sighted profit-oriented companies won't do? apart for military technologies, it seems society has decided to put its future advances squarely and solely in the hands of the corporate world. This is sad.
It could have been St. Elmo's fire, since barbed wire has sharp edges.
I watch the video and it sounds like a lot of PR talk and buzzwords to me.
At the end of the day, assuming the computers and networks between you and the credit union are secure (they're not, but let's forget that), the only problem they have is to make sure you're Mr. John Doe, legitimate holder of the account you're trying to access ("who you are"). Period. All that matrix and multi-identification stuff is just a variation on the same theme.
Up to now, "what you know" (a password) was assumed to be representative of "who you are", with the single point of failure that someone else might be able to know what you know as well (being your password that's too simple, or someone looking over your shoulder while you type in the password). This was a reasonable assumption because you can't separate someone with this someone's knowledge.
If they want to do better than that, they'll have to use biometrics (DNA analysis, fingerprinting, iris scanning, etc...) or some sort of permanent electronic tagging (RFID implant). That's plain as day. So if your credit union isn't providing you a fingerprint scanner or telling you to go to your local vet to get a RFID implanted, you can safely assume that their new ultra-super-duper solutions are a variation of what's already been implemented before, perhaps a little better, perhaps not, but definitely a lot of PR fluff.
If HUMAN FEMALES really wanted to advertise fertility they have their nose light up and breasts double in size.
It's called "plastic surgery" (at least for the breast size), and it's designed to advertise fertility at some unconscious level. As for the nose thing, only female clown performers do that to attract male clowns.
So they'll advertise, but never actually have any for sale? It's like shopping at Best Buy.
No, when you buy something at Best Buy, you can return it if the product is defective.
but experimentally i've verified that i'm more likely to end up in a bed with a cute girl than someone with unfortunate looks.
:)
Actually your preferences in girls are entirely societal: I'm assuming you're a westerner who prefers slim, tall, magazine-cover-beautiful girls, but if you were an animal, you'd opt for a fat, squat, muscular-looking female who would be statistically more able to have your babies and care for them.
Also, i've noted that if she grabs my package, i stop caring about looks until after the deed is done, so maybe it's a wash.
That on the other hand reconnects you with your animal ancestry
does it really mean anything for us humans? I mean, if women actually attracted more men when they look attractive, then we wouldn't have had a surge of babies 9 months after the northeast power blackout, quite the contrary.
I'm sure human being still have a tendency to "display" their fertility, by looks or by scents, on some unconscious level, simply because we're just really clever monkeys, but I'm not certain humans are receptive to these signals anymore, and if they are, psychological and intelligent decision-making processes in the brain probably supercede animal instincts.
Hey - remember when you could do some trivial data changes in a few lines of code and a 1K executable? Or am I just old?
When was the last time you saw a 1K executable on Windows? The only one I can think of is the bootloader.
The point is that "EU cash" here refers to Entropia Universe cash, more commonly known as PED (Project Entropia Dollars). The fixed rate between these currencies is 1 USD = 10 PED.
:)
Just imagine paying your Verizon bill in PED
Good luck getting somebody declared a resident/citizen/dual citizen though. My body is in France? Why is that a problem, etc, etc.
Well that's the interesting bit isn't it? these banking licenses might allow a virtual realm to pursue statehood, thus posing a whole new set of problems and potentially creating many legal precedents. The issues at stake I guess could be the challenging of the definition of residency and citizenship, where it could be necessary to disassociate the fact that someone is physically present somewhere, and mentally present somewhere else as well, for extended periods of time, etc...
Quite frankly, perhaps I'm just dreaming, maybe these banking licenses don't stand a chance of proving anything at all if the virtual world really wanted to become a state, I am not a lawyer thank goodness, but I've been waiting for a virtual state to come into existence for a long time, and I think it'll happen some day.
So much for our love for democracy... If that is not the ultimate super absolute dictatorship..
The form of government has nothing to do with statehood: North Korea is a state, so was the USSR.
These are exactly what you think they are: in-game bankers can transfer Entropia funds directly to your real-world bank account as real world cash.
So essentially, the Entropia "world" has been given the right to manage a fiduciary mass. A virtual world and a virtual fiduciary system, but a real one nonetheless because it has currency rate with real greenbacks.
Consider the definition of a state: statehood for an entity as having:
- a territory: Entropia is virtual real-estate, but it's not so far-fetched to say it's a real territory, since people use its virtual space
- a population: Entropia has gamers
- a government: the game maker I suppose
- the ability to mint money: well, it has a currency now, backed by a currency rate recognized by another state
- the ability to print its own stamps: that would be easy to implement, with an in-game certified email system separate from regular email
- the capacity to have relationships with other, recognized states: it does de-facto, since an already recognized state recognized its currency
So, I think in international law, Entropia could claim statehood. Their position would be even less shaky than, for example, Sealand. This is a very exciting and new development indeed.
Out of curiosity, does that mean you believe that a morally wrong action was still the correct action to take?
Yes, a morally wrong action may be the correct action to take if you're forced to do it to prevent something morally worse. In the case of WW2, it was morally wrong to go to war, but morally worse to let the Germans invade Europe. In that respect, the Allies were "less wrong" than the Axis, which makes none of it okay of course, but sometimes you're cornered and you have to take choices.
When you're not forced into action however, as in the case of the Iraq war, going to war should be considered an international crime.
WWII was also a horrific event. Do you think that movies based upon it, such as Saving Private Ryan are shameless exploitations of the event? Should they all have been pulled? Should all the war games ever made be pulled? All games in which any person harms another person?
No. I think all these games and movies have a right to exist, including the Columbine game, or even an Al Quaeda simulator if there was such a game. They have the right to exist because if they don't, then at some point or another, some other form of speech will be curtailed, and this isn't acceptable. The whole point of free speech is to accept all speech, including the horrific and shameful ones, for the sake of the others.
WhatI'm upset about is the people getting angry of the exploitation of an event involving several kids shot up, but completely failing to even take notice of the exploitation of an event involving tens of millions of horrific deaths because the exploitation glorifies the side their countries was on. Just try to make a game where you incarnate a German SS going on a shooting spree, and you'll quickly draw the ire of the entire nation. But when you propose gamers to incarnate a G.I. going on a shooting spree, then it becomes alright.
That's the dual morality system that people have that makes me angry, and the media and entertainment industries that perpetuate this dual morality.
In the case of war, the argument can be made that it is morally correct to try and overthrow Nazi's.
That's where you're wrong. War is morally wrong, period. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to war against the Nazis, what I'm trying to point out is that exploiting the human misery that WW2 in a game 60 years later is no more acceptable that exploiting a bunch of kids getting machine-gunned in a school recently. Probably less so: WW2 is a world-wide stain on humanity, whereas Columbine is, despite all its horror, a local event.
I wish I had mod points :)
Of course, any game based on something as horrific as the Columbine shooting is at best bad taste, at worst shameless exploitation of the event to get in the press, and people should rightfully be angry, and the game should be pulled out.
But for some reason I fail to understand, there are dozens of games glorifying WW2 combats, or simulating the Iraq war. Millions have died during WW2, and hundred of thousands died in Iraq and continue to do so. Yet nobody finds reasons to be upset when you incarnate a G.I. killing German soldiers in a game. It's all perfectly normal to them.
My grandfather died in WW2, I never knew him. He was fighting for the "good guys" (the allies), but that didn't prevent my dad from crying often when he thought about him. War simulation games make me just as angry as this stupid Columbine RPG, and people who get their pants in a knot over the Columbine game then go play the virtual soldier ten minutes later make me sick, because they're biased, politically correct idiots with short memories...
The truth is, Opera has such small share of the browser market that it just doesn't matter if the entire world knows about a remote exec hole or not: no cracker or pirate is going to code for such a small fish.
What's more, by not disclosing vulnerabilities and coding being the back of the users, it just makes the development team look like they've acquired their development habbits at Microsoft.
So I'd say Opera loses by hiding this...
Why? because it's brown or because it's expensive?
No DRM emerges as a winner? of course not, nobody wins with DRM, not even the record companies or the artists, as consumers hate it and it drives sales away...
Ok, I download mp3s as much as the next guy, and I never pay a dime to the record companies, so I'm all for piracy and I freely admit I rip these guys off.
However, your line of reasoning sounds like you're trying to justify stealing. You're saying: "I had these CDs, I lost them, so I'm entitled to a new copy". But tell me, if someone steals your car, does that give you the right to take someone else's to replace it because you had already paid for the car? Or perhaps a better analogy, since comparing stealing data and stealing physical objects isn't quite the same thing: say you lost a good book you hadn't finished: does that give you the right to download the content of the book somewhere and print it off? I think not.
Admit it man: you steal music just like the rest of us. Just admit it, it'll be better than trying to come up with reasons why you feel you're entitled to steal it.
Why sue for a trillion, when you can sue for... a million?
Because a trillion rubles is roughly 10 bucks.
AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that being on the correct side of the law in Russia means being friend with Putin or someone close to Putin. Or at least to business that Putin doesn't care about.
If Putin has a mp3 player, that might explain...