My point was that a person drinking distilled water would be at a disadvantage in their mineral content vs. someone drinking undistilled water. Wikipedia and the Journal of General Internal Medicine seem to agree with me. Distilled water is certainly not dangerous in any way, but we do obtain certain not insignificant amounts of minerals from tap water, which we do not from distilled water.
The problem, I think, is if you only drink distilled water, the electrolytes and minerals that leave your system in urine aren't being replaced as fast as they are when you drink tap water. Sure, you'll get some from food, but much less than normal. This could be a major issue, especially if you are drinking a lot of water. I.e. drinking a lot of distilled water could result in electrolyte depletion that would not happen with tap water. But this is probably something very few people will ever be in danger of doing.
No, it is very relevant. Besides the fact that not everyone knows about proxies(and they are still not trivial to use on mobile devices, which is what many protesters use), you also have the fact that this is very much a "silent" form of censorship.
Someone has a major case of "I didn't read TFA." Relevant quote:
If Twitter does remove a tweet, users in the country in which it was removed will see a grayed-out tweet in their timeline that says a message from an identified user has been withheld.
This is the exact opposite of "silent" censorship as you seem to mean it. The users know something was blocked, and it sounds like they know who sent it.
Have you been watching the news? Governments already have demanded Twitter block tweets in their countries. Egypt blocked Twitter during the revolts. This is just to keep themselves out of trouble when that sort of thing happens.
As bad as SOPA is, I very much doubt it has anything to do with this.
States only have the rights to control things that aren't established in the US Constitution, i.e. they can't do most of those things anyways. If there is a right that needs to be granted to minorities etc. it should be established by Constitutional amendment, not congressional fiat.
Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
Ah, nope! Might wanna consult a dictionary on that one.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
So by definition, conservatives are opposed to new laws that infringe on existing liberties. Actually, they are opposed to new laws in general.
P.S. Most of the so-called "conservatives" in the US government aren't really conservative.
I was talking about the characters, not the reading.
However, I do understand your point. To really appreciate the Paradiso, you have to know a lot of Medieval cosmology and theology (actually, that is true of the entire Divine Comedy, but especially the last part). The entirety of the work has four interpretative levels, which are the literal, figurative or allegorical (or metaphorical), moral, and anagogical (yes spellcheck that is a real word). This is true of many of the works of literature which are called "great", but to really understand these levels you usually have to have read an absolutely massive body of other works. Most people really only see the literal and figurative levels. Oh and you should read it in the original Italian too. Really, literature is a much more in-depth field than most people realize.
Just as a quick example: Dante meets 3 creatures at the beginning of the Inferno, a leopard, a lion, and a she-wolf. Those are actually representative of the 3 main levels of hell at one level (the appetative sins, like lust, the spirited sins, like anger, and the intellectual ones, like fraud and treachery), and of those tendencies in Dante (the main character's) soul at another level. He can't get around the she-wolf, which is figurative of his problems with intellectual sins (pride, most likely), and Virgil (considered a prime example of intellectual guidance) is required to show him the path around her.
For reference, despite having read a lot of great works, I don't understand most of the symbolism in the Divine Comedy, just enough to see the depth there.
Purgatorio is writing web pages without concern for security: painful, but not bad once you finish. Paradiso is writing malware on the Internet: painless, easy, and rewarding.
And yet after that meeting to "reconsider" things (original source here after you wade through 3 links), the Polish government decided to go ahead anyways (source: here. Note the date: today, and after the meeting referenced in the first link). To be fair, he does say they are going to attach a clause about how to interpret the law (right after saying it doesn't change anything at all) and that they will consult the public "broadly". Somehow, I just can't bring myself to believe either of those will have any real impact.
And that sort of attitude is why we (by *we* I collectively mean everyone who has a government that is trying to pass ACTA, which is a lot of people) have the government we do. See, Anonymous doesn't think "how can I inform the people" or "how can I get about changing the government." All they do, all they ever do, is lash out at whoever pisses them off. And being a mostly uneducated (and, frankly, not particularly intelligent) mob on the Internet, it doesn't take much to do that.
Keep in mind, productive measures do exist. Redditors managed to pull it off with their SOPA protests. The thing is, that takes work, coordination, and information, and it is very difficult. Anonymous isn't good at that. They are good at running scripts, and that is about it. A few of the leaders they pro port not to have are a bit more capable, but by and large they are no better than a mob with pitchforks, and mobs never help. Well, unless a full-on revolution starts. Until then, they just make their own side look like..., well, like a mob. In this case a mob of basement dwelling law-breaking nerds with major rage issues.
Huh? The lawsuit would have to pass muster under the Australian legal system. This is a lawsuit, not a new law. It isn't like we are overtly saying they have to follow a foreign law (which would be a violation of sovereignty). You might argue that the US has influenced law a certain way, but again, the Aussies themselves would have to actually pass the law. Therefore, no, this could not be seen that way.
Unless it could be shown that the intent was to undermine the economy. Evil as the MPAA is, that isn't their intention, just a side effect.
Account settings -> Delete profile and remove associated Google+ features, select "Delete your entire Google profile", check box labeled "I understand that deleting this service can't be undone and the data I delete can't be restored", press "Remove Selected Services", done. Five steps in total.
Government/ corporations, by and large, don't know how the Internet works, and what they know about it they don't like. And by "government/corporations" I mean almost any government (note the "almost": it is possible that there are exceptions. Notably, this is not limited to the U: the US just happens to be where many of the most powerful corporations, and the most powerful government, exist) and most non-tech corporations (a few do get it, mostly smaller ones or those who have made their living through the Internet). It is simple, really: government cannot control the Internet, which makes the people in power frightened. They don't realize it can't be controlled (at least not without some major reworking, reworking that at this point will only happen over many dead bodies), but they will damn well try. And corporations similarly fear a loss of control.
Obviously (to the techies) the solution isn't a stick, but a carrot: use the Internet to your advantage. But that would require those in power to change, and those people hate and despise change, since the present order (i.e. their own power) can so easily be destroyed by change.
What they haven't realized is they lost 10 years ago: we are just now coming to the point where that is becoming obvious to them. The real change just comes slowly. It remains to be seen, of course, whether the new order is better or worse than the old: but you can damn well bet the old will fight tooth and nail to stop it.
They had a warrant in this case, actually: it just expired the day before they planted the device. Also, they planted it in a location not specified in the warrant. This case was less one of deliberately violating peoples' civil rights and more a case of the police just being sloppy. Which is really stupid on their part, as the individual they were tracking is almost certainly guilty of drug dealing (cocaine) and now may well walk.
Slashdot Mirror
unsigned group's budget for lawyers: $20
Universal's budget for lawyers: millions
Public opinion: priceless.
What did it mean for a fly to be executable?
It has an x chromosome.
My point was that a person drinking distilled water would be at a disadvantage in their mineral content vs. someone drinking undistilled water. Wikipedia and the Journal of General Internal Medicine seem to agree with me. Distilled water is certainly not dangerous in any way, but we do obtain certain not insignificant amounts of minerals from tap water, which we do not from distilled water.
Are you deaf from the "WHOOOOSH"?
The problem, I think, is if you only drink distilled water, the electrolytes and minerals that leave your system in urine aren't being replaced as fast as they are when you drink tap water. Sure, you'll get some from food, but much less than normal. This could be a major issue, especially if you are drinking a lot of water. I.e. drinking a lot of distilled water could result in electrolyte depletion that would not happen with tap water. But this is probably something very few people will ever be in danger of doing.
No, it is very relevant. Besides the fact that not everyone knows about proxies(and they are still not trivial to use on mobile devices, which is what many protesters use), you also have the fact that this is very much a "silent" form of censorship.
Someone has a major case of "I didn't read TFA." Relevant quote:
If Twitter does remove a tweet, users in the country in which it was removed will see a grayed-out tweet in their timeline that says a message from an identified user has been withheld.
This is the exact opposite of "silent" censorship as you seem to mean it. The users know something was blocked, and it sounds like they know who sent it.
Have you been watching the news? Governments already have demanded Twitter block tweets in their countries. Egypt blocked Twitter during the revolts. This is just to keep themselves out of trouble when that sort of thing happens.
As bad as SOPA is, I very much doubt it has anything to do with this.
States only have the rights to control things that aren't established in the US Constitution, i.e. they can't do most of those things anyways. If there is a right that needs to be granted to minorities etc. it should be established by Constitutional amendment, not congressional fiat.
t hasn't stopped an actual virus since the mid-90's."
I wouldn't say that, it seems to do a pretty good job shutting down Windows.
Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
Ah, nope! Might wanna consult a dictionary on that one.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
So by definition, conservatives are opposed to new laws that infringe on existing liberties. Actually, they are opposed to new laws in general.
P.S. Most of the so-called "conservatives" in the US government aren't really conservative.
TFA specifies 6 Chrome based spin-offs (Chromium being one). TFS on the other hand is just wrong, but what else would you expect from Slashdot.
I was talking about the characters, not the reading.
However, I do understand your point. To really appreciate the Paradiso, you have to know a lot of Medieval cosmology and theology (actually, that is true of the entire Divine Comedy, but especially the last part). The entirety of the work has four interpretative levels, which are the literal, figurative or allegorical (or metaphorical), moral, and anagogical (yes spellcheck that is a real word). This is true of many of the works of literature which are called "great", but to really understand these levels you usually have to have read an absolutely massive body of other works. Most people really only see the literal and figurative levels. Oh and you should read it in the original Italian too. Really, literature is a much more in-depth field than most people realize.
Just as a quick example: Dante meets 3 creatures at the beginning of the Inferno, a leopard, a lion, and a she-wolf. Those are actually representative of the 3 main levels of hell at one level (the appetative sins, like lust, the spirited sins, like anger, and the intellectual ones, like fraud and treachery), and of those tendencies in Dante (the main character's) soul at another level. He can't get around the she-wolf, which is figurative of his problems with intellectual sins (pride, most likely), and Virgil (considered a prime example of intellectual guidance) is required to show him the path around her.
For reference, despite having read a lot of great works, I don't understand most of the symbolism in the Divine Comedy, just enough to see the depth there.
Purgatorio is writing web pages without concern for security: painful, but not bad once you finish. Paradiso is writing malware on the Internet: painless, easy, and rewarding.
And yet after that meeting to "reconsider" things (original source here after you wade through 3 links), the Polish government decided to go ahead anyways (source: here. Note the date: today, and after the meeting referenced in the first link). To be fair, he does say they are going to attach a clause about how to interpret the law (right after saying it doesn't change anything at all) and that they will consult the public "broadly". Somehow, I just can't bring myself to believe either of those will have any real impact.
So, nope, Anonymous didn't really do anything.
And that sort of attitude is why we (by *we* I collectively mean everyone who has a government that is trying to pass ACTA, which is a lot of people) have the government we do. See, Anonymous doesn't think "how can I inform the people" or "how can I get about changing the government." All they do, all they ever do, is lash out at whoever pisses them off. And being a mostly uneducated (and, frankly, not particularly intelligent) mob on the Internet, it doesn't take much to do that.
Keep in mind, productive measures do exist. Redditors managed to pull it off with their SOPA protests. The thing is, that takes work, coordination, and information, and it is very difficult. Anonymous isn't good at that. They are good at running scripts, and that is about it. A few of the leaders they pro port not to have are a bit more capable, but by and large they are no better than a mob with pitchforks, and mobs never help. Well, unless a full-on revolution starts. Until then, they just make their own side look like..., well, like a mob. In this case a mob of basement dwelling law-breaking nerds with major rage issues.
And now they have every justification for doing so in the eyes of most of their citizens.
Great job, anonymous! /sarcasm
Huh? The lawsuit would have to pass muster under the Australian legal system. This is a lawsuit, not a new law. It isn't like we are overtly saying they have to follow a foreign law (which would be a violation of sovereignty). You might argue that the US has influenced law a certain way, but again, the Aussies themselves would have to actually pass the law. Therefore, no, this could not be seen that way.
Unless it could be shown that the intent was to undermine the economy. Evil as the MPAA is, that isn't their intention, just a side effect.
What will you post tomorrow? What sign of the zodiac is best for getting a job at Google?
Oh that's easy. Virgo, a.k.a the virgin.
Account settings -> Delete profile and remove associated Google+ features, select "Delete your entire Google profile", check box labeled "I understand that deleting this service can't be undone and the data I delete can't be restored", press "Remove Selected Services", done. Five steps in total.
You can also delete the G+ profile. Took me about 30 seconds to figure out how, and about 5 to actually do so.
His use of "irony" was ironic, though. Gotta give him points for that.
Government/ corporations, by and large, don't know how the Internet works, and what they know about it they don't like. And by "government/corporations" I mean almost any government (note the "almost": it is possible that there are exceptions. Notably, this is not limited to the U: the US just happens to be where many of the most powerful corporations, and the most powerful government, exist) and most non-tech corporations (a few do get it, mostly smaller ones or those who have made their living through the Internet). It is simple, really: government cannot control the Internet, which makes the people in power frightened. They don't realize it can't be controlled (at least not without some major reworking, reworking that at this point will only happen over many dead bodies), but they will damn well try. And corporations similarly fear a loss of control.
Obviously (to the techies) the solution isn't a stick, but a carrot: use the Internet to your advantage. But that would require those in power to change, and those people hate and despise change, since the present order (i.e. their own power) can so easily be destroyed by change.
What they haven't realized is they lost 10 years ago: we are just now coming to the point where that is becoming obvious to them. The real change just comes slowly. It remains to be seen, of course, whether the new order is better or worse than the old: but you can damn well bet the old will fight tooth and nail to stop it.
Does Han shoot first?
They had a warrant in this case, actually: it just expired the day before they planted the device. Also, they planted it in a location not specified in the warrant. This case was less one of deliberately violating peoples' civil rights and more a case of the police just being sloppy. Which is really stupid on their part, as the individual they were tracking is almost certainly guilty of drug dealing (cocaine) and now may well walk.
I tried but all I heard on the other end of the line sounded like moaning zombies and muffled screams.
Are you sure you called the CDC and not Congress?