Nazism, Communism, and the KKK are examples of ideas which are evil.
You mean "Facism" and "Toltaranism" and "Racism", don't you? Or "Nazi Germany" and "USSR" and "KKK" as "organizations" that are evil...
Evil is harming others to aid yourself. Good is the inverse. Nazis harmed the jews (and others) and hardly sacraficed of their own nation, while a few individuals sacraficed themselves for their nation, and thus were good. The USSR had a similar duality.
most of the world regards the Israeli occupation of West Bank and the Gaza Strip post-1967 as unlawful.
So what?
There's no real teeth to international laws. if a country wants to do something, all that they need to do is have enough military might to outclass their neighbors and enough political savvy to not have the rest of the world unify around them.
Making genocide & similar acts of crulety "war crimes" makes sense--but calling conquered territory "illegal" is horribly silly.
I never said what side I supported in the religious terrorism war--just that it WAS religious in nature, and a likely place for "homemade nukes" to be used if they were really all that simple to make.
What about a cam pointed at the monitor? Either from the same computer or another one? Or just videotape separately as the ebook scrolls by, then have some ocr software decode it.
I'm just having a hard time figuring out how ebooks will ever enjoy the same "practical" protection that wood books do.
Er, if you need to take a visual of the text and then process it, the ebook DOES have the same "practical" protection that wood books do.
A sharp knife and a sheet-fed scanner will get you an electronic format of your book in no time flat.
Is this actually any different from "mob rule"? Or is "mob rule" an idea put about by those in power who have a vested interest in seeing that the people do not in fact rule?
You should look into the history of the American Revolution, the formation of the American Constituion, and the causes of the American Civil War.
Athens set a precedent that Democracies eventually kill themselves. Thus, the Americans made checks against a "tyranny of the majority" in the form of the disproportionate Senate, the Presidental Office, and the nonelected Supreme Court. The Republican Democracy that was created clearly relies on the power of the people to choose their leaders, while giving form for easy transitions of power and assurance that those in power can exercise it without immediate mob veto.
Remember also that the ability to vote doesn't neccessarily mean the voter will vote either - they'll tend to vote only on matters that concern them directly, much as US Senators and UK MPs do now, but at least then we'd have proper democracy - rule of the people by the people, instead of rule/(mis)representation of the people by a privileged minority.
If we did that, we'd be even worse off than we our now. Think about how scattered the legislature is with just a small fraction of the population directly involved. Once you get above the town level, direct democracy would lead to a ludicrous pork-barrel government that would buckle inside of a hundred years.
If you think that you're misrepresented, find some others who think like you do, agree on what you want changed, and organize to change it. If you're not just being anal, it's likely that either you or your issue will be picked up and get fairly decided one way or the other.
The one between the radical Islamic terrorists and the Palestenians against the Americans and Israel. You know, the one that's been fought with suicide bombers, car bombs, and more hit-and-run tactics than the Viet Cong used?
As a rule, Muslims don't fight each other religiously any more than Protestants fight each other religiously. So when someone says "religious war" and "middle east", you might want to think "what non-Muslims have been attacked by Muslims in a religious pretext in the recent era?"
As for Iraq--yeah, the USA made the bastard, just like we helped implement the Taliban and all those petty dictators across the world. Now that the cold war's over, we should step up and take care of our mistakes--starting with Iraq and any other dictator who doesn't have their people's support after twenty-odd years of rule.
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with NASA. They had two options:
1. Go to the store and pick up some ready-made beef patties at $2.50/lb.
Wow, you mean you know now only how to get a year's supply of beef to mars without spoiling, but you can do it without adding $97 bazillion to the cost of the trip?
2. At a cost of $97 bazillion in taxpayer money, invent cowless beef in a laboratory.
And they went with option 2. Is there any wonder they're running short on cash and haven't done anything useful in a decade and a half?
Growing meat in a lab, once invented, can be used on EVERY space mission of length from now on. Plus it has a real profit potential. Plus it solves a very real problem in a clever way.
NASA's problems are hardly their innovative style. Mismanagement, lack of clairity of vision (are they a physical astronomy lab, or a vehicle for getting humans into space?), and overambitious technical projects (NASP/X-30(?), Alpha, etc) are more of the issue. And a small budget doesn't help, either.
Oh, and though you didn't mention it, you should know that there IS a reason to use pens instead of pencils in space. (The famous example of NASA's problems being its design of a billion-dollar space-pen when the Russians just used pencils)
Pencils give off graphite powder when writing, when their writing is left in the open, and when their writing is erased. Pens are more durable, easier to use, and don't clog up the air filter.
Oh, and NASA did use pencils at first--and then a private American citizen invented the space-pen, and NASA bought it at something like $10 a pop.
There's a world of difference between a bunch of radioactive waste (the boy scout) or a nuclear reactor (the scavanger hunt) and a real honest-to-goodness nuclear weapon. Things like shock waves, timing circuits, controlled detonation, etc. that actually produce fission and not just a scattering of radioactive shrapnel.
And this is beside the point of TESTING the weapons, which tends to draw attention from the superpowers-that-be... and has a likely chance of harming your own impoverished country.
If you want to have a nuclear weapon that you know works, and that no one else knows you have or are working on, you NEED a supercomputer. Anything less gets you dirty bombs or UN sanctions.
(If nukes were really as easy as you think they are, wouldn't some have been used in the middle east's religious war by now?)
Any actual examination of both sides of this debate should make it very clear that these court cases are not actually about a program that facilitates copying but about our access to information on the little plastic wafers we own.
No, it's not about that. It's about a program that decrypts the CSS on those little plastic disks that you have, and the laws that give encryption the same (maybe better) legal protection as the locks on your house.
And the case is about "is code speech?" in the same way that "George Bush sucks" speech or is it speech in the same way as "Sheetrock's SSN is XXX-XX-XXXX, his real name is XXXXXXXXX, his credit card number is XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX expire XX/XX [etc]".
Oh, and the case is also about "can the Australian court issue orders that are enforceable on US soil?"
The fact that said decryption algorithym can be used to read DVDs on Windows, Linux, or to make copies is largely irrelevant. Sure, the fact that it's a method of access for non-Windows non-Apple folks with a PC-DVD ROM drive gives DeCSS merit as a piece of software exempt from the DMCA, but I doubt that the court will rule on that at all--or if they do, that their ruling will make the FSF happy.
There could be infinite demensions [sp] dependent on how you look at things.
No, there can't. There's an infinite number of _degrees of movement_, but a finite number of dimensions.
When people think demensiones [sp] the first ones that come to mind are x,y,z,t there is no real [sp] reason to think the first three-four are this aside from convention. There is no reason to think those demensions [sp] are any more meaningful than it is to have say stress, strain, rate of heat transfer...etc or any other of the bizillion demensions [sp] one could come up with.
Stress, heat transfer, refraction, etc. aren't "dimensions." They're "qualities." A "dimension" is a word that means "perpindicular axis which fixes a point in space-time", and the space-time we know only has four, while being made up of more than this.
Everyone percieves four dimensions. A lot of people contemplate in only two and a half dimensions--they think of x and y, or y and z, and add either z or x as a secondary process. And if you ask them to think about t, it's yet another mental step.
A few people are said to be able to concieve in 3D, but this may simply be a very-efficient application of the "2D+1" mental process. Since t is the only variable of space-time in which we have constant motion, it's always useful to think about it using a seperate process.
If you find yourself contemplating z or t when the data is useless, you may have a mental defiency that needs to be treated via either mental effort or medical science. (The data isn't always useless--noting the location of hills on a 2D naviagion across the surface of the Earth is noting valuble and relatively unchanging landmarks.)
However, from your post I would presume that you're simply lacking the correct vocabulary to appreciate what "dimension" means and what it doesn't mean.
There are none that we can't measure in some way. That wouldn't be a dimension. If we couldn't define it and measure it.
We live in 4D spacetime. As such, we are incapable of measuring any dimension other than x, y, z, and t.
"Wasted thought" is probably only when you realize that you're noticing an extra quality or pondering an extraneous detail when in the midst of work. While it's important to know how your own mind works, it's wasteful to spend too much time reveling in your own thought process--or debating thought processes on/.;)
As long as you follow the codes & can prove that you know what you're doing, I don't think that it is.
Who decided that any government "owns" the radio spectrum?
We did. The governments of the world exist to protect their populations from foreign powers, to act in the best interest of their populations, and to settle disputes between members of their population.
The radio spectrum is a place where, if left unchecked, would be rather difficult to use. Government regulation and control is, oddly enough, the perfect answer for this, although the form of said control could use a bit of revision.
Who gives this organization [the FCC] such power to control the "airwaves"?
The Congress and President of the United States of America, under powers approved by the Supreme Court and endowed into them by the citizens and electoral college of the United States.
If the question of "should government regulate airwaves" is answered in the affirmative, the next step is to form a new entity that acts very much as a "industry association" to do the actual regulation.
Anarchy leads to no infrastructure and rule of might, as opposed to rule of right or rule of law. Though they aren't ideal yet, the governments of the world DO serve a necessary purpose, and this is one of them.
Therefore the galaxy is forming now. Perhaps someone with a better grasp can clarify, but I believe that is the basic position.
Sounds like limiting "the universe" to "the subjective universe." Or in other worde: sure, from a standpoint of how-much-plank-time-has-passed-since -the-time-of-creation that galaxy formed 68 million years ago--but as far as WE care, it's just forming now, since it took 68 million years for the effects of its creation to get here.
OUR now is limited to what we can percieve--and it's a rather complex perspective, really. However, the "real now" keeps on going at the same rate everywhere as it does here--but the further you get away, the longer possible causality takes to sync between you and us.
Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't.
Picture something that's 4D. Now stop it from moving.
Most folk who claim "special thinking ability" are just failing to communicate what they're talking about it. Or they don't understand the concept of multiple dimensions.
The world we live in is way more than 4D. The 4th demension is time.
The world we live in only has 4 dimensions. Oh, sure, there are 6-7 dimensions that makes THOSE up, but we have no way of percieving them or altering them. If we could, we've have found them a LONG time ago.
Granted I relize many people, maybe most, only think in 2D, how I don't know. I think in 3D all the time and add more D's as needed.
You're wasting thought processes in something that can't exist.
Most folk "think" in 2D+, which is how we can navigate. Sure, we _can_ move vertically, but not as easilly as we move horizontally or laterally.
I can't even write on paper without my mind visulizing the thickness of the letters.
Again, you're wasting thought process. Look at your computer monitor--it IS 2D, and a perceptive mind should realize THAT before trying to contemplate the micrometer depth of letters on paper.
...at that point we've destroyed the internet in its current form...
It's happened before. It will happen again. It's only a matter of time.
Feel all angst-ridden and revolutionary if you want; it's only a matter of time before something comes out to replace the 'net with a non-anonymous, pseduo-reality two-way information conduit. When (nearly) everything has a unique IP and (nearly) everything never changes its IP, the P2P networks will lose their citical mass and become all but worthless.
Heck, it might not even take than--given the right economic model, most folks would trade a few dollars for the rights to have a copy of the songs they want.
The battle really should be about first amendment rights, and basically it being unconstitutional to have a law like the Sony Bono act
Wait--it's unconsitutional for Congress to decide how long copyright lasts? Gasp!
We'll have to leave it up to--er--ah...
How about we just leave Congress the powers granted to them in the constitution, and we rely on the S.C. to say when an extension is no longer reasonable (and thus unconstitutional), and you stop spreading FUD.
You can't have "a little bit freedom of speech" any more than you can be "just a little bit pregnant."
Sorry, you're wrong. Freedom of speech is abridged all the time--for example, by NDAs, by dangerous circumstance, etc, etc.
It's NOT the kind of absolute right that, oh, the right to keep on breathing is.
(hint: the freedom to only do or say what is approved isn't freedom. Until people figure this out our trembling democracy will remain in need of serious triage).
You've got it wrong. The freedoms isn't "do what is approved." It's "do anything but what's barred." And even then, if you've got a good reason or circumventing details (either the stage IS on fire, or you're up in front of the stage play-acting in a musical about a fire...) you can get past the prohibition.
MS extended HTML to accomodate page breaks and other features that Office supports but most standard web page editors don't. And the fun part is that, aside from the bloated document, they don't really impeded the HTML rendering.
I remember HTMLDOC. It looked interesting to start off with, but it's missing a certain something to make it a worthy standard.
I'd rather Mozilla support MHTML first--or even CHM, or even just the Moz-help system! (If it does and you know it, feel free to correct me with a link...)
This product has really improved lately. In fact, the only thing wrong with HTMLDOC, IMO, is that it uses the GPL rather than a truly free license.
If you don't like it, don't use it. Feel free to write you own, or buy Acrobat.
The GPL is fine and dandy for standard, public-commons systems that run by themselves without amalgration with any other software. It only imposes on a justifiable freedom if it's used on a standard module, library, or format.
The prosecution cannot call the accused to the stand--pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment
I think they can call--but he just don't have to answer if he doesn't want to.
Re:not really an objective review
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 2
Back on topic: the author of the book in question begins with the assumption that aliens exist, and then proceeds to examine evidence in favor of that assumption, and concludes that aliens exist. IOW, he "begs the question."
I still disagree.
He takes "aliens exist" as a given, and goes on to examine what they are like based on the "evidence," as it is.
This ISN'T a book that purports to ask "do aliens exist?" It's a differnet question entirely.
Sorta like a book that describes how.NET will change the world isn't asking if.NET will change the world--it's just a propaganda piece/review for.NET.
Re:not really an objective review
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 2
The quote "Something had to have happened in these places and many others throughout the globe to engender such speculation and argument" is a perfect example of the logical fallacy at work here. This is what is meant by "begging the question."
Hardly. Something must have happened. It may have been a freak atmospheric event. It may have been random mass hallucinations. It may have just been a few clever hoaxers. And, it MAY have been aliens.
We don't know WHAT it is, but since we have Events Recorded in Memory, SOMETHING sure the hell happened.
The logical error would be an overextension of evidence to a faulty conclusion (like assuming that since we can breathe on the ground, we can breathe anywhere above the water), not begging the question--heck, it's not even a question!
Word files are RAM dumps. The memory is allocated, uh, oddly and chunks are scattered all over and over and over (because parts have been re-indexed but not yet over-written or garbage collected.)
Can you provide a source? Not that I doubt you, I just want to see the original for myself so I'm absolutely sure that you're correct.
It seems to me that a RAM dump would be faster to load and save than a text stream--and easier to implement version changes in, to boot. So I don't think that its something they did to be malicious...
Even though RTF is and open standard, many programs which claim compatibility are still not 100% compatible, and can screw up things like embedded images. I supposed Microsoft's implementation of XML will be similar. It will be open, but the more complicated documents would still be displayed differently by non-Microsoft products. It would also force everyone to switch to Microsoft XML, or at least be compatible with it, retaining the dominance of Office.
Actually, they're MUCH more likely to simply use the model they used for the office HTML system.
Use what's there when it works for replicating.doc, and extend it where it doesn't.
Remember, you can also save a Word document as an HTML file, however the HTML is so digusting, so non-standard that the only things that could possibly read it are more Microsoft products. The same, I would presume, will be happening to their XML feature.
Do you have Word 97, Word 2000, or Word 2002/XP?
97 had abyssmal HTML. Thankfully, I don't have to even touch it anymore.
2000 and 2002 have, as far as I can tell, nearly identical HTML schemas. And, excluding the proprietary office tags ( and and the like), it's rather standard--if cumbersome--HTML.
If you have Word 2000, you can even get an HTML filter that'll strip the custom HTML and CSS from the file, leaving an HTML file that really couldn't get much cleaner.
Who is to say that the removal technique is good enough to recover the fingerprint exactly?
The Judge and Jury, actually.
What if the removal process adds/subtracts features from the fingerprint itself to the point that it appears to be a match but might not be?
Then the defense can raise that theory at trial.
If you're concerned about this, do what any hacker does upon sighting a problem. Learn as much about it and demonstrate a way to break the unbreakable--and then broadcast the results as loudly as possible. You might get fame, or maybe just a small "expert witness" paycheck.
Slashdot Mirror
Nazism, Communism, and the KKK are examples of ideas which are evil.
You mean "Facism" and "Toltaranism" and "Racism", don't you? Or "Nazi Germany" and "USSR" and "KKK" as "organizations" that are evil...
Evil is harming others to aid yourself. Good is the inverse. Nazis harmed the jews (and others) and hardly sacraficed of their own nation, while a few individuals sacraficed themselves for their nation, and thus were good. The USSR had a similar duality.
most of the world regards the Israeli occupation of West Bank and the Gaza Strip post-1967 as unlawful.
So what?
There's no real teeth to international laws. if a country wants to do something, all that they need to do is have enough military might to outclass their neighbors and enough political savvy to not have the rest of the world unify around them.
Making genocide & similar acts of crulety "war crimes" makes sense--but calling conquered territory "illegal" is horribly silly.
I never said what side I supported in the religious terrorism war--just that it WAS religious in nature, and a likely place for "homemade nukes" to be used if they were really all that simple to make.
What about a cam pointed at the monitor? Either from the same computer or another one? Or just videotape separately as the ebook scrolls by, then have some ocr software decode it.
I'm just having a hard time figuring out how ebooks will ever enjoy the same "practical" protection that wood books do.
Er, if you need to take a visual of the text and then process it, the ebook DOES have the same "practical" protection that wood books do.
A sharp knife and a sheet-fed scanner will get you an electronic format of your book in no time flat.
Is this actually any different from "mob rule"? Or is "mob rule" an idea put about by those in power who have a vested interest in seeing that the people do not in fact rule?
You should look into the history of the American Revolution, the formation of the American Constituion, and the causes of the American Civil War.
Athens set a precedent that Democracies eventually kill themselves. Thus, the Americans made checks against a "tyranny of the majority" in the form of the disproportionate Senate, the Presidental Office, and the nonelected Supreme Court. The Republican Democracy that was created clearly relies on the power of the people to choose their leaders, while giving form for easy transitions of power and assurance that those in power can exercise it without immediate mob veto.
Remember also that the ability to vote doesn't neccessarily mean the voter will vote either - they'll tend to vote only on matters that concern them directly, much as US Senators and UK MPs do now, but at least then we'd have proper democracy - rule of the people by the people, instead of rule/(mis)representation of the people by a privileged minority.
If we did that, we'd be even worse off than we our now. Think about how scattered the legislature is with just a small fraction of the population directly involved. Once you get above the town level, direct democracy would lead to a ludicrous pork-barrel government that would buckle inside of a hundred years.
If you think that you're misrepresented, find some others who think like you do, agree on what you want changed, and organize to change it. If you're not just being anal, it's likely that either you or your issue will be picked up and get fairly decided one way or the other.
To which war are you referring to?
The one between the radical Islamic terrorists and the Palestenians against the Americans and Israel. You know, the one that's been fought with suicide bombers, car bombs, and more hit-and-run tactics than the Viet Cong used?
As a rule, Muslims don't fight each other religiously any more than Protestants fight each other religiously. So when someone says "religious war" and "middle east", you might want to think "what non-Muslims have been attacked by Muslims in a religious pretext in the recent era?"
As for Iraq--yeah, the USA made the bastard, just like we helped implement the Taliban and all those petty dictators across the world. Now that the cold war's over, we should step up and take care of our mistakes--starting with Iraq and any other dictator who doesn't have their people's support after twenty-odd years of rule.
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with NASA. They had two options:
1. Go to the store and pick up some ready-made beef patties at $2.50/lb.
Wow, you mean you know now only how to get a year's supply of beef to mars without spoiling, but you can do it without adding $97 bazillion to the cost of the trip?
2. At a cost of $97 bazillion in taxpayer money, invent cowless beef in a laboratory.
And they went with option 2. Is there any wonder they're running short on cash and haven't done anything useful in a decade and a half?
Growing meat in a lab, once invented, can be used on EVERY space mission of length from now on. Plus it has a real profit potential. Plus it solves a very real problem in a clever way.
NASA's problems are hardly their innovative style. Mismanagement, lack of clairity of vision (are they a physical astronomy lab, or a vehicle for getting humans into space?), and overambitious technical projects (NASP/X-30(?), Alpha, etc) are more of the issue. And a small budget doesn't help, either.
Oh, and though you didn't mention it, you should know that there IS a reason to use pens instead of pencils in space. (The famous example of NASA's problems being its design of a billion-dollar space-pen when the Russians just used pencils)
Pencils give off graphite powder when writing, when their writing is left in the open, and when their writing is erased. Pens are more durable, easier to use, and don't clog up the air filter.
Oh, and NASA did use pencils at first--and then a private American citizen invented the space-pen, and NASA bought it at something like $10 a pop.
Did you even read those links?
There's a world of difference between a bunch of radioactive waste (the boy scout) or a nuclear reactor (the scavanger hunt) and a real honest-to-goodness nuclear weapon. Things like shock waves, timing circuits, controlled detonation, etc. that actually produce fission and not just a scattering of radioactive shrapnel.
And this is beside the point of TESTING the weapons, which tends to draw attention from the superpowers-that-be... and has a likely chance of harming your own impoverished country.
If you want to have a nuclear weapon that you know works, and that no one else knows you have or are working on, you NEED a supercomputer. Anything less gets you dirty bombs or UN sanctions.
(If nukes were really as easy as you think they are, wouldn't some have been used in the middle east's religious war by now?)
Any actual examination of both sides of this debate should make it very clear that these court cases are not actually about a program that facilitates copying but about our access to information on the little plastic wafers we own.
No, it's not about that. It's about a program that decrypts the CSS on those little plastic disks that you have, and the laws that give encryption the same (maybe better) legal protection as the locks on your house.
And the case is about "is code speech?" in the same way that "George Bush sucks" speech or is it speech in the same way as "Sheetrock's SSN is XXX-XX-XXXX, his real name is XXXXXXXXX, his credit card number is XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX expire XX/XX [etc]".
Oh, and the case is also about "can the Australian court issue orders that are enforceable on US soil?"
The fact that said decryption algorithym can be used to read DVDs on Windows, Linux, or to make copies is largely irrelevant. Sure, the fact that it's a method of access for non-Windows non-Apple folks with a PC-DVD ROM drive gives DeCSS merit as a piece of software exempt from the DMCA, but I doubt that the court will rule on that at all--or if they do, that their ruling will make the FSF happy.
You mean, "our 4D universe exists in a universe with much more dimensions that are beyond our ability to percieve."
There could be infinite demensions [sp] dependent on how you look at things.
/. ;)
No, there can't. There's an infinite number of _degrees of movement_, but a finite number of dimensions.
When people think demensiones [sp] the first ones that come to mind are x,y,z,t there is no real [sp] reason to think the first three-four are this aside from convention. There is no reason to think those demensions [sp] are any more meaningful than it is to have say stress, strain, rate of heat transfer...etc or any other of the bizillion demensions [sp] one could come up with.
Stress, heat transfer, refraction, etc. aren't "dimensions." They're "qualities." A "dimension" is a word that means "perpindicular axis which fixes a point in space-time", and the space-time we know only has four, while being made up of more than this.
Everyone percieves four dimensions. A lot of people contemplate in only two and a half dimensions--they think of x and y, or y and z, and add either z or x as a secondary process. And if you ask them to think about t, it's yet another mental step.
A few people are said to be able to concieve in 3D, but this may simply be a very-efficient application of the "2D+1" mental process. Since t is the only variable of space-time in which we have constant motion, it's always useful to think about it using a seperate process.
If you find yourself contemplating z or t when the data is useless, you may have a mental defiency that needs to be treated via either mental effort or medical science. (The data isn't always useless--noting the location of hills on a 2D naviagion across the surface of the Earth is noting valuble and relatively unchanging landmarks.)
However, from your post I would presume that you're simply lacking the correct vocabulary to appreciate what "dimension" means and what it doesn't mean.
There are none that we can't measure in some way. That wouldn't be a dimension. If we couldn't define it and measure it.
We live in 4D spacetime. As such, we are incapable of measuring any dimension other than x, y, z, and t.
"Wasted thought" is probably only when you realize that you're noticing an extra quality or pondering an extraneous detail when in the midst of work. While it's important to know how your own mind works, it's wasteful to spend too much time reveling in your own thought process--or debating thought processes on
Why is building your own transmitter ilegal?
As long as you follow the codes & can prove that you know what you're doing, I don't think that it is.
Who decided that any government "owns" the radio spectrum?
We did. The governments of the world exist to protect their populations from foreign powers, to act in the best interest of their populations, and to settle disputes between members of their population.
The radio spectrum is a place where, if left unchecked, would be rather difficult to use. Government regulation and control is, oddly enough, the perfect answer for this, although the form of said control could use a bit of revision.
Who gives this organization [the FCC] such power to control the "airwaves"?
The Congress and President of the United States of America, under powers approved by the Supreme Court and endowed into them by the citizens and electoral college of the United States.
If the question of "should government regulate airwaves" is answered in the affirmative, the next step is to form a new entity that acts very much as a "industry association" to do the actual regulation.
Anarchy leads to no infrastructure and rule of might, as opposed to rule of right or rule of law. Though they aren't ideal yet, the governments of the world DO serve a necessary purpose, and this is one of them.
Therefore the galaxy is forming now. Perhaps someone with a better grasp can clarify, but I believe that is the basic position.
Sounds like limiting "the universe" to "the subjective universe." Or in other worde: sure, from a standpoint of how-much-plank-time-has-passed-since -the-time-of-creation that galaxy formed 68 million years ago--but as far as WE care, it's just forming now, since it took 68 million years for the effects of its creation to get here.
OUR now is limited to what we can percieve--and it's a rather complex perspective, really. However, the "real now" keeps on going at the same rate everywhere as it does here--but the further you get away, the longer possible causality takes to sync between you and us.
Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't.
Picture something that's 4D. Now stop it from moving.
Most folk who claim "special thinking ability" are just failing to communicate what they're talking about it. Or they don't understand the concept of multiple dimensions.
The world we live in is way more than 4D. The 4th demension is time.
The world we live in only has 4 dimensions. Oh, sure, there are 6-7 dimensions that makes THOSE up, but we have no way of percieving them or altering them. If we could, we've have found them a LONG time ago.
Granted I relize many people, maybe most, only think in 2D, how I don't know. I think in 3D all the time and add more D's as needed.
You're wasting thought processes in something that can't exist.
Most folk "think" in 2D+, which is how we can navigate. Sure, we _can_ move vertically, but not as easilly as we move horizontally or laterally.
I can't even write on paper without my mind visulizing the thickness of the letters.
Again, you're wasting thought process. Look at your computer monitor--it IS 2D, and a perceptive mind should realize THAT before trying to contemplate the micrometer depth of letters on paper.
...at that point we've destroyed the internet in its current form...
It's happened before. It will happen again. It's only a matter of time.
Feel all angst-ridden and revolutionary if you want; it's only a matter of time before something comes out to replace the 'net with a non-anonymous, pseduo-reality two-way information conduit. When (nearly) everything has a unique IP and (nearly) everything never changes its IP, the P2P networks will lose their citical mass and become all but worthless.
Heck, it might not even take than--given the right economic model, most folks would trade a few dollars for the rights to have a copy of the songs they want.
The battle really should be about first amendment rights, and basically it being unconstitutional to have a law like the Sony Bono act
Wait--it's unconsitutional for Congress to decide how long copyright lasts? Gasp!
We'll have to leave it up to--er--ah...
How about we just leave Congress the powers granted to them in the constitution, and we rely on the S.C. to say when an extension is no longer reasonable (and thus unconstitutional), and you stop spreading FUD.
You can't have "a little bit freedom of speech" any more than you can be "just a little bit pregnant."
Sorry, you're wrong. Freedom of speech is abridged all the time--for example, by NDAs, by dangerous circumstance, etc, etc.
It's NOT the kind of absolute right that, oh, the right to keep on breathing is.
(hint: the freedom to only do or say what is approved isn't freedom. Until people figure this out our trembling democracy will remain in need of serious triage).
You've got it wrong. The freedoms isn't "do what is approved." It's "do anything but what's barred." And even then, if you've got a good reason or circumventing details (either the stage IS on fire, or you're up in front of the stage play-acting in a musical about a fire...) you can get past the prohibition.
I remember HTMLDOC. It looked interesting to start off with, but it's missing a certain something to make it a worthy standard.
I'd rather Mozilla support MHTML first--or even CHM, or even just the Moz-help system! (If it does and you know it, feel free to correct me with a link...)
This product has really improved lately. In fact, the only thing wrong with HTMLDOC, IMO, is that it uses the GPL rather than a truly free license.
If you don't like it, don't use it. Feel free to write you own, or buy Acrobat.
The GPL is fine and dandy for standard, public-commons systems that run by themselves without amalgration with any other software. It only imposes on a justifiable freedom if it's used on a standard module, library, or format.
The prosecution cannot call the accused to the stand--pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment
I think they can call--but he just don't have to answer if he doesn't want to.
Back on topic: the author of the book in question begins with the assumption that aliens exist, and then proceeds to examine evidence in favor of that assumption, and concludes that aliens exist. IOW, he "begs the question."
.NET will change the world isn't asking if .NET will change the world--it's just a propaganda piece/review for .NET.
I still disagree.
He takes "aliens exist" as a given, and goes on to examine what they are like based on the "evidence," as it is.
This ISN'T a book that purports to ask "do aliens exist?" It's a differnet question entirely.
Sorta like a book that describes how
The quote "Something had to have happened in these places and many others throughout the globe to engender such speculation and argument" is a perfect example of the logical fallacy at work here. This is what is meant by "begging the question."
Hardly. Something must have happened. It may have been a freak atmospheric event. It may have been random mass hallucinations. It may have just been a few clever hoaxers. And, it MAY have been aliens.
We don't know WHAT it is, but since we have Events Recorded in Memory, SOMETHING sure the hell happened.
The logical error would be an overextension of evidence to a faulty conclusion (like assuming that since we can breathe on the ground, we can breathe anywhere above the water), not begging the question--heck, it's not even a question!
Word files are RAM dumps. The memory is allocated, uh, oddly and chunks are scattered all over and over and over (because parts have been re-indexed but not yet over-written or garbage collected.)
Can you provide a source? Not that I doubt you, I just want to see the original for myself so I'm absolutely sure that you're correct.
It seems to me that a RAM dump would be faster to load and save than a text stream--and easier to implement version changes in, to boot. So I don't think that its something they did to be malicious...
Even though RTF is and open standard, many programs which claim compatibility are still not 100% compatible, and can screw up things like embedded images. I supposed Microsoft's implementation of XML will be similar. It will be open, but the more complicated documents would still be displayed differently by non-Microsoft products. It would also force everyone to switch to Microsoft XML, or at least be compatible with it, retaining the dominance of Office.
.doc, and extend it where it doesn't.
Actually, they're MUCH more likely to simply use the model they used for the office HTML system.
Use what's there when it works for replicating
Remember, you can also save a Word document as an HTML file, however the HTML is so digusting, so non-standard that the only things that could possibly read it are more Microsoft products. The same, I would presume, will be happening to their XML feature.
Do you have Word 97, Word 2000, or Word 2002/XP?
97 had abyssmal HTML. Thankfully, I don't have to even touch it anymore.
2000 and 2002 have, as far as I can tell, nearly identical HTML schemas. And, excluding the proprietary office tags ( and and the like), it's rather standard--if cumbersome--HTML.
If you have Word 2000, you can even get an HTML filter that'll strip the custom HTML and CSS from the file, leaving an HTML file that really couldn't get much cleaner.
Hmm, you can't really use it to get leads either. Any evidence that comes from inadmissable evidence is inadmissable itself.
I believe that you're wrong.
If you're given an anonymous tip, or someone takes a lie dectector test, you can't use these as evidence--but you CAN use them to get evidence.
Anything that comes from ILLEGAL police procedure is tainted. Not just inadmissable evidence.
Who is to say that the removal technique is good enough to recover the fingerprint exactly?
The Judge and Jury, actually.
What if the removal process adds/subtracts features from the fingerprint itself to the point that it appears to be a match but might not be?
Then the defense can raise that theory at trial.
If you're concerned about this, do what any hacker does upon sighting a problem. Learn as much about it and demonstrate a way to break the unbreakable--and then broadcast the results as loudly as possible. You might get fame, or maybe just a small "expert witness" paycheck.