Wouldn't it make more sense if there was a patent protecting it? If the conspirators held the patent and buried it, nobody would be able to bring the product to market.
Granted, it would be less secret, assuming you knew where in the millions of patents to look to find it.
Wouldn't work anyway, psx games require psx memory cards to save, even on the ps2. PS2 games can't read psx cards either. (The builtin memory card editor can move saves back and forth between types of cards, but it's mostly for being able to backup psx games onto the bigger ps2 cards to make more space on the psx card.
Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too.
While the cheapest way to increase MPG is to use less metal, you're discounting the research into more efficient engines and lighter but stronger construction materials and techniques, plus technology that helps reduce the risk of collision in the first place.
let each individual focus on what they believe in.
For the past several millenia (at least), people have tried as hard as they can to believe in as little as possible. Part of the problem is education, part is apathy, and part are just assholes who believe it's their god-given right to use other people's property as their trash dump.
You're assuming the pixels themselves are square in shape, which may or may not be so (plasma display pixels tend to be rectangular). Of course, not assuming that the object is round is also perfectly fine, since the Earth (if not most of the other planets) is not perfectly round.
he is actively helping people to distribute child pornography
For your next act you should rant about how Tim Berners-Lee is actually in league with the phishers and scam artists who run websites on the internet. Or how Bram Cohen is personally sharing every song, book, game, and movie ever created, all at the same time.
Thats just it, the "dual effect" doesn't have to exist.
If you set up freenet to have a 100MB cache, and you download or publish 100MB of kiddie porn, then you're likely to be serving up kiddie porn. If you download or publish 100MB of chinese dissident sites, blogs, and what not, then you're likely to be serving up chinese dissident sites, blogs, and what not. Now, that's simplistic, since you also cache what the people around you are publishing and looking at. So, look at your neighbor. If he/she was on freenet, what would they write or look at?
If you want a clear consicence, all you have to do is ensure that your presence has a positive effect on the network:
A) Read lots of interesting but non-kiddie porn sites B) Publish lots of interesting but non-kiddie porn sites, such that other freenet users are interested enough to read your site, and thus increase the cacheshare of non-kiddie porn.
If you're just going to run a node in the background and not do anything, then you are the ultimate neutral party. If you cannot accept neutrality, then by all means, don't run the node.
but now the issue is keeping them from being purchased by minors.
Thus bans of selling violent and offensive games to minors?
Regardless of how YOU think a game should be rated
I don't care how the games are rated. The problem is that so far every law that has been passed (and subsequently killed) has refused to admit that a rating system exists, instead choosing to use vague language that will inevitably create another "Miller-test" situation where the pimply teens working the cash register will have an arrest record for selling some rated "E" game at the wrong time (read: when the DA wants to look "tough on crime").
What a useless study! Who cares about this M-Rated thing? How are the politicians supposed to use this information when they're trying to push their laws calling for bans of "violent" and "offensive" games to minors?
We need a new study, counting the number of "violent" and "offensive" games sold to minors, where "violent" and "offensive" is properly defined... by taking the people selling the games to court over and over until the prosecution gets a jury that will agree that the game is violent or offensive!
Find your mate, and stay with that one mate for the rest of your life. And never worry about AIDS.
You're assuming of course, that you are the "one mate" of your "one mate". How many of those people you have no pity for have only one mate? How many are the loyal wives (or husbands) of those who slept around behind their backs?
The other two would come to their house and beat him to a pulp. That's the way I see it. Porn hurts families.
More or less than beating brothers to a pulp? I have several married friends who are loyal to their mates, and watch porn (together) as a way of exploring new ideas sexually that they would not have thought of alone. I can certainly say that if they are being hurt, that being hurt is a favorable condition in their case. In other comments, there are those that claim that it hurts "future families" by teaching people who are not married "bad things" that detract from socially acceptable life. If this is true, we should start studying porn to see how it is capable of teaching kids these things when we can't even teach our kids history. Perhaps our classroom techniques need to be updated.
I don't think the government has a right to regulate porn.
Blanket statements like "porn hurts families" is why we end up with government in every corner of our lives. Everybody is in danger of something, therefore our government MUST do something about it.
Sure, there are "other situations" where subpoenas can be used for whatever someone likes, but is "Waaah! I can't pass my pet law so I'm going to scream and cry until I get what I want!" one of them? You think it's ok if information is "safeguarded", I think that the subpoenas shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Says who? You might ask Tom DeLay who lost his position and now his guns because he became the victim of his own government's abuse of power. Innocent until proven guilty? No, crybabies like you have to be "protected".
Who needs due process of law when we can all be "safer" from indicted felons like DeLay?
If your mother sends you an email saying your dad's in the hospital and you don't get it because it was sent from a hospital computer instead of their usual account, you're going to rush right out and get a new account so you can get this email? Or are you going to live your life blissfully unaware of the fact that important messages are being dropped on the floor?
The appeal was made to the Supremes saying that the level of required evidence was an undue burden (there's some bullshit about how the plaintiff would be required to gather evidence about every web site on the internet and its expected standing in each of the 94 federal district courts - this claim doesn't pass the laugh test).
Yes, it seems that all you'd need is two courts and one website: if you can show that two different courts would rule differently on the same material you'd have sufficient evidence to show that this federal law is a failure. I didn't look up the case being appealed, but in this case you're right, it's pretty obvious that the grounds of the appeal is bogus.
And hey - how come my ad is cheap for not using enough of the right words, but your two liner is wonderful?
Because after I sent in my resume, they called me up, we had an interview, and we pinned down all the missing words. The wonderful part was that I got the job.
Her fear of prosecution does not give her "standing" in the legal sense. If she publishes and gets prosecuted in Alabama --- then she has standing and it's worth the courts time to bother with.
This is the saddest thing about our so-called "Checks and Balances". The vast majority of the time, the judicial branch is completely left out of the loop until someone is hurt by a law. How would you like it if you were told that the police were going to plant a live timebomb in your neighborhood to practice disarming bombs, and when you went to complain, you were told that you couldn't do anything about it until after they blew up your house. The worst laws are exactly like this, waiting to blow up on some unsuspecting person. If you ARE suspecting, tough shit. You still can't do anything about it until it blows up on you.
Of course, this is an oversimplification, people can and do attempt to sue the government for an injunction to force a review of the law, but if the SCOTUS feels as you do (they rarely give a reason for rejecting cases so who knows?) then it's simply futile.
You're asking me for a job, please don't tell me its my fault for not guessing when you said UNIX you meant Mac OSX.
You're asking for an employee, please don't whine about my personality when you're too cheap to buy enough words to explain what you want in the ad.
(Amusingly enough, after I graduted, I applied for over 60 jobs, getting less than 10 responses and one interview that didn't pan out. The one that worked? I responded to a two-liner ad in the paper, "Linux programmer wanted/Fax:....." and got the job)
Tell the world which of your guaranteed constitutional rights that you can no longer do because of the Patriot Act or whatever.
Also, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Every power the government claims for itself that is not mentioned in the Constitution is one that has been stripped from the States and the People respectively.
Others mentioned the no-fly list. People claim that I have no right to fly (see also: 9th Amendment), I claim that the United States has no right to prevent me from flying. If you find this in the Constitution, let me know. "Interstate commerce" doesn't count, as the no-fly list applies even on intrastate flights.
Others mentioned elections. Elections are specifically delegated to the states, with the exception that Congress can choose the election date. Someone (you?) claimed that the Florida election was "lost", however, the SCOTUS cancelled the recount before a statement could have been made as to who "won" or "lost".
Slashdot Mirror
There is no patent protecting this invention
Wouldn't it make more sense if there was a patent protecting it? If the conspirators held the patent and buried it, nobody would be able to bring the product to market.
Granted, it would be less secret, assuming you knew where in the millions of patents to look to find it.
How many biomechanical engineers does it take to replace a wafer-thin oled sheet?
Not only that, but any moment now I'll be able to grab the torrent right off the starforce website! Score one for us, indeed!
Wouldn't work anyway, psx games require psx memory cards to save, even on the ps2. PS2 games can't read psx cards either. (The builtin memory card editor can move saves back and forth between types of cards, but it's mostly for being able to backup psx games onto the bigger ps2 cards to make more space on the psx card.
Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too.
While the cheapest way to increase MPG is to use less metal, you're discounting the research into more efficient engines and lighter but stronger construction materials and techniques, plus technology that helps reduce the risk of collision in the first place.
let each individual focus on what they believe in.
For the past several millenia (at least), people have tried as hard as they can to believe in as little as possible. Part of the problem is education, part is apathy, and part are just assholes who believe it's their god-given right to use other people's property as their trash dump.
Slashdot might tell them the IP addresses you used to post from, but it'll cost them a subscription to see your entire posting history ;)
You're assuming the pixels themselves are square in shape, which may or may not be so (plasma display pixels tend to be rectangular). Of course, not assuming that the object is round is also perfectly fine, since the Earth (if not most of the other planets) is not perfectly round.
old generation who don't know jack about X blames it for the problems created by the way people are
Speak for yourself, after playing hundreds of hours of Final Fantasy, I now run around town casting Firaga on people while drinking "potions".
he is actively helping people to distribute child pornography
For your next act you should rant about how Tim Berners-Lee is actually in league with the phishers and scam artists who run websites on the internet. Or how Bram Cohen is personally sharing every song, book, game, and movie ever created, all at the same time.
Thats just it, the "dual effect" doesn't have to exist.
If you set up freenet to have a 100MB cache, and you download or publish 100MB of kiddie porn, then you're likely to be serving up kiddie porn. If you download or publish 100MB of chinese dissident sites, blogs, and what not, then you're likely to be serving up chinese dissident sites, blogs, and what not. Now, that's simplistic, since you also cache what the people around you are publishing and looking at. So, look at your neighbor. If he/she was on freenet, what would they write or look at?
If you want a clear consicence, all you have to do is ensure that your presence has a positive effect on the network:
A) Read lots of interesting but non-kiddie porn sites
B) Publish lots of interesting but non-kiddie porn sites, such that other freenet users are interested enough to read your site, and thus increase the cacheshare of non-kiddie porn.
If you're just going to run a node in the background and not do anything, then you are the ultimate neutral party. If you cannot accept neutrality, then by all means, don't run the node.
but now the issue is keeping them from being purchased by minors.
Thus bans of selling violent and offensive games to minors?
Regardless of how YOU think a game should be rated
I don't care how the games are rated. The problem is that so far every law that has been passed (and subsequently killed) has refused to admit that a rating system exists, instead choosing to use vague language that will inevitably create another "Miller-test" situation where the pimply teens working the cash register will have an arrest record for selling some rated "E" game at the wrong time (read: when the DA wants to look "tough on crime").
What a useless study! Who cares about this M-Rated thing? How are the politicians supposed to use this information when they're trying to push their laws calling for bans of "violent" and "offensive" games to minors?
We need a new study, counting the number of "violent" and "offensive" games sold to minors, where "violent" and "offensive" is properly defined... by taking the people selling the games to court over and over until the prosecution gets a jury that will agree that the game is violent or offensive!
Find your mate, and stay with that one mate for the rest of your life. And never worry about AIDS.
You're assuming of course, that you are the "one mate" of your "one mate". How many of those people you have no pity for have only one mate? How many are the loyal wives (or husbands) of those who slept around behind their backs?
The other two would come to their house and beat him to a pulp. That's the way I see it. Porn hurts families.
More or less than beating brothers to a pulp? I have several married friends who are loyal to their mates, and watch porn (together) as a way of exploring new ideas sexually that they would not have thought of alone. I can certainly say that if they are being hurt, that being hurt is a favorable condition in their case. In other comments, there are those that claim that it hurts "future families" by teaching people who are not married "bad things" that detract from socially acceptable life. If this is true, we should start studying porn to see how it is capable of teaching kids these things when we can't even teach our kids history. Perhaps our classroom techniques need to be updated.
I don't think the government has a right to regulate porn.
Blanket statements like "porn hurts families" is why we end up with government in every corner of our lives. Everybody is in danger of something, therefore our government MUST do something about it.
Or for civil cases
Is that so? Who's being sued? For what damages?
Or in a number of other situations
Sure, there are "other situations" where subpoenas can be used for whatever someone likes, but is "Waaah! I can't pass my pet law so I'm going to scream and cry until I get what I want!" one of them? You think it's ok if information is "safeguarded", I think that the subpoenas shouldn't have existed in the first place.
It's also totally incorrect.
Says who? You might ask Tom DeLay who lost his position and now his guns because he became the victim of his own government's abuse of power. Innocent until proven guilty? No, crybabies like you have to be "protected".
Who needs due process of law when we can all be "safer" from indicted felons like DeLay?
Market forces require market knowledge.
If your mother sends you an email saying your dad's in the hospital and you don't get it because it was sent from a hospital computer instead of their usual account, you're going to rush right out and get a new account so you can get this email? Or are you going to live your life blissfully unaware of the fact that important messages are being dropped on the floor?
What part of this is unclear?
The part that lets companies grab at your wallet every chance they get.
The appeal was made to the Supremes saying that the level of required evidence was an undue burden (there's some bullshit about how the plaintiff would be required to gather evidence about every web site on the internet and its expected standing in each of the 94 federal district courts - this claim doesn't pass the laugh test).
Yes, it seems that all you'd need is two courts and one website: if you can show that two different courts would rule differently on the same material you'd have sufficient evidence to show that this federal law is a failure. I didn't look up the case being appealed, but in this case you're right, it's pretty obvious that the grounds of the appeal is bogus.
And hey - how come my ad is cheap for not using enough of the right words, but your two liner is wonderful?
Because after I sent in my resume, they called me up, we had an interview, and we pinned down all the missing words. The wonderful part was that I got the job.
Her fear of prosecution does not give her "standing" in the legal sense. If she publishes and gets prosecuted in Alabama --- then she has standing and it's worth the courts time to bother with.
This is the saddest thing about our so-called "Checks and Balances". The vast majority of the time, the judicial branch is completely left out of the loop until someone is hurt by a law. How would you like it if you were told that the police were going to plant a live timebomb in your neighborhood to practice disarming bombs, and when you went to complain, you were told that you couldn't do anything about it until after they blew up your house. The worst laws are exactly like this, waiting to blow up on some unsuspecting person. If you ARE suspecting, tough shit. You still can't do anything about it until it blows up on you.
Of course, this is an oversimplification, people can and do attempt to sue the government for an injunction to force a review of the law, but if the SCOTUS feels as you do (they rarely give a reason for rejecting cases so who knows?) then it's simply futile.
You're asking me for a job, please don't tell me its my fault for not guessing when you said UNIX you meant Mac OSX.
....." and got the job)
You're asking for an employee, please don't whine about my personality when you're too cheap to buy enough words to explain what you want in the ad.
(Amusingly enough, after I graduted, I applied for over 60 jobs, getting less than 10 responses and one interview that didn't pan out. The one that worked? I responded to a two-liner ad in the paper, "Linux programmer wanted/Fax:
I prefer the ring of "C-Octothorpe"
but I don't see how DRM would ever be considered in a system of this nature.
And then one day, the Sargeant's wife shipped him his favorite artist's latest CD, and he slips it into the closest thing around that'll play it.
Tell the world which of your guaranteed constitutional rights that you can no longer do because of the Patriot Act or whatever.
Also, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Every power the government claims for itself that is not mentioned in the Constitution is one that has been stripped from the States and the People respectively.
Others mentioned the no-fly list. People claim that I have no right to fly (see also: 9th Amendment), I claim that the United States has no right to prevent me from flying. If you find this in the Constitution, let me know. "Interstate commerce" doesn't count, as the no-fly list applies even on intrastate flights.
Others mentioned elections. Elections are specifically delegated to the states, with the exception that Congress can choose the election date. Someone (you?) claimed that the Florida election was "lost", however, the SCOTUS cancelled the recount before a statement could have been made as to who "won" or "lost".
Name one civil liberty that you have lost during this administration.
The 6th Amendment.