What, you mean no one has high-orbit satellites searching for low-orbit satellites silhouetted against the bright surface of the earth? If I were a major world government, I sure would... Why bother? Just assume that there's a satellite watching you, and act accordingly. You get better security, and don't have to waste time giving yourself false intel.
It's an interesting 5th Amendment argument that your dreams would be giving testimony against yourself. Not really an argument. You have the 5th amendment right to prevent the government from compelling anything from you, be it speech or DNA or, in some rare instances, fingerprints. You just need to know to stand up for that right.
Don't want to tell the police officer you were speeding? Just don't answer. ("Do you know how fast you were going?" "yes")
Don't want to take that breathalyzer? Forfeit your license and you're fine.
Don't want to sign that statement the police put in front of you? Don't. (Just be prepared to have them prosectute you.)
Here is another obvious rules: If a computer, at any time at all, has to parse or generate XML in large amounts, you are doing it wrong Depends on what you're doing.
One computer storing temporary data? XML is worthless. A computer storing data for use on said same computer? XML brings little to the table.
One computer program writing something that a different computer program will read from a file system at a later date? Look at XML. If you save a non-trivial amount of processor or developer time, go with it.
And let's ignore the fact that AJAX really doesn't work without XML, will we? Because that kind of defeats the original whiney argument.
You do realize the government doesn't produce anything, don't you? They merely take money and spend money. Sure. If you ignore the actual issuing of currency, or the funding of new ideas, or the develop-for-us industries of aerospace, the internet, etc...
And that's not counting the power companies that exist essentially because of government development. Or the farmers who produce grain on the government's dime.
So by "doesn't produce anything", were you just talking about literal production of shrink-wrapped widgets? Because yes, the US Government doesn't mass-produce anything. But the federal government has had a considerable hand in the creation of wealth, in economic terms, for over a century now.
Re:What about the CONTRIBUTIONS?
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Is this going to disillusion a whole generation of politically active geeks? No. Ron Paul never had a majority of "geek" support. He's a wackjob, but he was a libertarian wackjob, so libertarian geeks supported him.
Maybe it'll dissolution a whole generation of "libertarian geeks", but that's O.K. by me. Geeks suffer as a whole when we spend all our energy arguing about a fringe political philosophy like libertarianism instead of focusing on issues that actually matter to us.
to produce 1 gallon of oil equivalent for ethanol requires inputs of, say, 1.1 gallons of oil. 1: Sorry, you got the ratio wrong. One gallon of oil produces, worst-case, the equivalent of 1.1 gallons of gasoline as ethanol.
2: Even this slim ratio applies ONLY when you use corn kernels to produce ethanol. Not the stalk. Not the cob. Just the fracking kernel.
Brazil gets a 300% energy efficiency for growing sugar cane to make ethanol. That's "spending 1 gallon of gas to get the equivalent of 3 gallons."
Barack Obama is a racially divisive person. In the caucus in Nevada, African-American voters selected him on the sole basis of his skin color. By that standard, a black man can never be president.
Obama didn't carry Nevada in more than common-delegates not because of his race, but because Clinton was more recognized and Obama didn't have the time to meet and inspire every single Nevada voter. He didn't lose because he was a "divisive person." He lost--that is, lost the popular vote--because he didn't convince enough Nevadians that he was better than Clinton. Note that the state was a virtual tie, and both Obama and Clinton have a fair share of delegates from NV.
More pressing, though, is that you're simply holding up "past performance at the polls" with "best for the nation." Both Obama and Clinton are excellent candidates, and if the other wasn't in the race either one would have cinched up the party by now.
Democrats are not Socialists. The military is not a Republican institution. And George W. Bush has proven beyond any doubt that knowing how to run a business does not make you knowledgeable about how to run a country.
It's a non free software problem. Free software users don't have to download software from untrusted third parties. No closed source software can be trusted, so Windoze users who don't get software from Snopes ads should not feel so smug. There is very little difference between M$ and Zango. Sheesh.
1: Unless you went through the code yourself, don't trust it. Maybe you can trust the maintainer of that code, but either way you end up trusting a third party.
2: Spelling it "Windoze" and "M$" just makes me think you're a moron. You're not a moron, are you? Why would you want me to think that?
3: Microsoft takes my money and gives me software that is as good or better than what I can get elsewhere. (Otherwise, I don't go to MS.) Zango would take my privacy, and give me... what, exactly? Third-rate software I can find better from a freshman off his first coding binge?
this anonymous person might even work for said law firm and want to protect their job while being allowed their freedom of speech, but i guess such concepts never crossed your mind did they. Freedom of speech without freedom of response is meaningless.
That is fundamentally impossible to enforce. The decryption-algorithm does not care what happens to the file AFTERWARDS. No, not really. It's just fundamentally impossible to enforce in the wild.
In a controlled business environment, this can be setup so that any attempt to break the DRM sends a clear signal to the company of an employee's activities. And if you can't think of reasons where a business wouldn't want DRM, I say you're just limiting your ideal of what kind of company would use Open Source Software if they could.
Now its perpetual, often long beyond the product's commercial life Every time Disney goes and gets the copyright term extended, the argument becomes just a little bit harder. Eventually, they'll be unable to make the argument, and we'll start to see copyright terms slowly slide back -- likely when it's easier to get the law changed than track down the company that owns a century-old copyright it doesn't know about.
Personally, i have no sympathy. Software should be covered by patents, not copyright -- if that were the case, OS/2 would be essentially public domain by now.
(And, fwiw, IBM would free up OS/2 if they could. They can't without significant expense, and there's no gain to justify the expense.)
Question. And here I run the gamut of looking really dumb, but with a thing so light, will it get warm enough to actually burn up? They're hoping not to. A lot of it depends on the angle of attack, but they are using fire-resistant paper for this, so they are apparently expecitng some heat.
You're opening yourself up to upwards of trillions in liability if your filtering doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time What?
No system on earth works 100% of the time. And the law never expects it to. Maybe, MAYBE I could see a case for even 300% punative damages above actual loss if AT&T somehow has Strict Liability now (you know, the kind that handlers of explosives deal with), but i can't imagine even a billion dollars in actual damages due to AT&T misfiltering.
Care to cite what part of the DMCA is so terrible?
That's well and good if it's your money, but if it's taxpayer money, then *you* are using *his/her* money to drop the paper plane. Actually, it's *us* using *our* money. If he objects to it, he should make a bigger stink and go get someone elected who will shut down all scientific research.
(And that's ignoring that the whole thing might be Japan spending ITS money.)
The DOS command line did not run a modern computing system not even when it was first released. Every command line I've ever seen has all of one real UI difference with the DOS commandline -- variable color. That's it.
Now, there's a lot to be said for a keyboard-driven command window for general computer operation -- but showing feedback as slowly scrolling lines of text isn't it.
Common wisdom (which may or may not be actual wisdom) suggests that powering up/down of computer power supplies is one of the largest sources of "wear" on computers nowadays, and so it's best to avoid that Nope. That would only be true if all of the three are true:
1: Power-cycling actually reduces the MTBF opposed to just leaving it on.
2: The reduced MTBF is lower than your company intends to keep the asset.
3: Cost-savings from the "increased" MTBF by leaving it on is greater than the electricity (+ increased A/C cost) cost to run those 300W power supplies all the time.
Of the ~6 computers I've had to failure, they all lasted far longer than even a five-year technology plan, AND did not fail due to simple wear and tear on the circuits. My anecdote isn't data, but it does make me question your conventional wisdom. (Especially since those PCs I know that are left on all the time don't have a significantly increased lifespan.)
Newsflash: VSTO does everything VBA does and more Really?
you mean I can hand someone a disk with "office" on it, tell them to install a few additional components, and they can go right into "easy" programming with VSTO?
Wow. And here I thought you needed a several-hundred dollar Visual Studio license to use VSTO. On top of the several-hundred dollar office license.
the semicolon placement seems to be fine to me. It is connecting two ideas that are partially, but not completley, related. You need to willfully parse the sentance to arrive at that. Any structure of grammar that requires willful parsing is simply wrong.
If he's not actually thinking "am I reading...", he should use a period, so as to eliminate the most-likely interpretation -- that he meant to use a colon, and just didn't know how.
And that uranium can be used to create a weapon of incredible power. And that a flood in New Orleans would be really bad. And that travel to the Moon is possible.
Each of those predictions had less consensus than human-aggravated Global Warming does today. Ten years ago, maybe, you could stand by your argument. Not in 2008.
UbuntuDupe hit the nail on the head; this is a prime example of the Broken Window Fallacy. No, it isn't.
Space Exploration serves economically as an impetus for invention and innovation, and as general inspiration for the nation at large. It is a national contest, and national contests have positive economic impact. Space Exploration isn't a broken window -- it's the game of baseball.
The most common form of national contest is war -- if you're having a hard time understanding it, think of it this way. Space Exploration is a way to have the economic benefits of a nation-at-war state, without the significant economic drains from the actual war.
1984 was a totalitarian communist state -- where paper records and free thought were not allowed. Compared to 1984's Oceania, Soviet Russia was a paradise.
Just because the government can watch you does not mean we're heading to a dystopia. All that matters is what the government DOES.
Unless the fed's are changing the history books ("Oh, no, George W. Bush was only elected in 2004"), stop crying wolf. You're only making it easier for the other side to dismiss your argument.
The fact is, fiat currency is pretend currency, and it only works as long as someone with a lot more guns than someone else has and keeps control of it. All currency is pretend currency. Adam didn't walk out of Eden, find a rock of gold, and use it to convince a monkey to work for him.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't want to tell the police officer you were speeding? Just don't answer. ("Do you know how fast you were going?" "yes")
Don't want to take that breathalyzer? Forfeit your license and you're fine.
Don't want to sign that statement the police put in front of you? Don't. (Just be prepared to have them prosectute you.)
One computer storing temporary data? XML is worthless. A computer storing data for use on said same computer? XML brings little to the table.
One computer program writing something that a different computer program will read from a file system at a later date? Look at XML. If you save a non-trivial amount of processor or developer time, go with it.
And let's ignore the fact that AJAX really doesn't work without XML, will we? Because that kind of defeats the original whiney argument.
And that's not counting the power companies that exist essentially because of government development. Or the farmers who produce grain on the government's dime.
So by "doesn't produce anything", were you just talking about literal production of shrink-wrapped widgets? Because yes, the US Government doesn't mass-produce anything. But the federal government has had a considerable hand in the creation of wealth, in economic terms, for over a century now.
Maybe it'll dissolution a whole generation of "libertarian geeks", but that's O.K. by me. Geeks suffer as a whole when we spend all our energy arguing about a fringe political philosophy like libertarianism instead of focusing on issues that actually matter to us.
2: Even this slim ratio applies ONLY when you use corn kernels to produce ethanol. Not the stalk. Not the cob. Just the fracking kernel.
Brazil gets a 300% energy efficiency for growing sugar cane to make ethanol. That's "spending 1 gallon of gas to get the equivalent of 3 gallons."
Obama didn't carry Nevada in more than common-delegates not because of his race, but because Clinton was more recognized and Obama didn't have the time to meet and inspire every single Nevada voter. He didn't lose because he was a "divisive person." He lost--that is, lost the popular vote--because he didn't convince enough Nevadians that he was better than Clinton. Note that the state was a virtual tie, and both Obama and Clinton have a fair share of delegates from NV.
More pressing, though, is that you're simply holding up "past performance at the polls" with "best for the nation." Both Obama and Clinton are excellent candidates, and if the other wasn't in the race either one would have cinched up the party by now.
Hey, fucktard.
Democrats are not Socialists. The military is not a Republican institution. And George W. Bush has proven beyond any doubt that knowing how to run a business does not make you knowledgeable about how to run a country.
1: Unless you went through the code yourself, don't trust it. Maybe you can trust the maintainer of that code, but either way you end up trusting a third party.
2: Spelling it "Windoze" and "M$" just makes me think you're a moron. You're not a moron, are you? Why would you want me to think that?
3: Microsoft takes my money and gives me software that is as good or better than what I can get elsewhere. (Otherwise, I don't go to MS.) Zango would take my privacy, and give me... what, exactly? Third-rate software I can find better from a freshman off his first coding binge?
In a controlled business environment, this can be setup so that any attempt to break the DRM sends a clear signal to the company of an employee's activities. And if you can't think of reasons where a business wouldn't want DRM, I say you're just limiting your ideal of what kind of company would use Open Source Software if they could.
Personally, i have no sympathy. Software should be covered by patents, not copyright -- if that were the case, OS/2 would be essentially public domain by now.
(And, fwiw, IBM would free up OS/2 if they could. They can't without significant expense, and there's no gain to justify the expense.)
No system on earth works 100% of the time. And the law never expects it to. Maybe, MAYBE I could see a case for even 300% punative damages above actual loss if AT&T somehow has Strict Liability now (you know, the kind that handlers of explosives deal with), but i can't imagine even a billion dollars in actual damages due to AT&T misfiltering.
Care to cite what part of the DMCA is so terrible?
(And that's ignoring that the whole thing might be Japan spending ITS money.)
Now, there's a lot to be said for a keyboard-driven command window for general computer operation -- but showing feedback as slowly scrolling lines of text isn't it.
1: Power-cycling actually reduces the MTBF opposed to just leaving it on.
2: The reduced MTBF is lower than your company intends to keep the asset.
3: Cost-savings from the "increased" MTBF by leaving it on is greater than the electricity (+ increased A/C cost) cost to run those 300W power supplies all the time.
Of the ~6 computers I've had to failure, they all lasted far longer than even a five-year technology plan, AND did not fail due to simple wear and tear on the circuits. My anecdote isn't data, but it does make me question your conventional wisdom. (Especially since those PCs I know that are left on all the time don't have a significantly increased lifespan.)
you mean I can hand someone a disk with "office" on it, tell them to install a few additional components, and they can go right into "easy" programming with VSTO?
Wow. And here I thought you needed a several-hundred dollar Visual Studio license to use VSTO. On top of the several-hundred dollar office license.
If he's not actually thinking "am I reading...", he should use a period, so as to eliminate the most-likely interpretation -- that he meant to use a colon, and just didn't know how.
They never show any logic, or sanity for that matter when it comes to this issue.
An "information wants to be free" is somehow more sane or logical than "you need to pay us when you hear that song."?
Except for global warming
And that uranium can be used to create a weapon of incredible power. And that a flood in New Orleans would be really bad. And that travel to the Moon is possible.
Each of those predictions had less consensus than human-aggravated Global Warming does today. Ten years ago, maybe, you could stand by your argument. Not in 2008.
Space Exploration serves economically as an impetus for invention and innovation, and as general inspiration for the nation at large. It is a national contest, and national contests have positive economic impact. Space Exploration isn't a broken window -- it's the game of baseball.
The most common form of national contest is war -- if you're having a hard time understanding it, think of it this way. Space Exploration is a way to have the economic benefits of a nation-at-war state, without the significant economic drains from the actual war.
1984 was a totalitarian communist state -- where paper records and free thought were not allowed. Compared to 1984's Oceania, Soviet Russia was a paradise.
Just because the government can watch you does not mean we're heading to a dystopia. All that matters is what the government DOES.
Unless the fed's are changing the history books ("Oh, no, George W. Bush was only elected in 2004"), stop crying wolf. You're only making it easier for the other side to dismiss your argument.
A better question is, "Why are they making changes so significant?"