Oh like Neo in the Matrix. He has to goto the capitol and be surrounded by them so the antivirus software in his body can be spread evenly throughout the land!
It was a bad ending for the movie and is no better in real politics. I wish him well tho.
1. Only works for labels that are under the RIAA. Otherwise you are hurting actual artists and depriving yourself of music.
2. WTF? This is what is to be ENCOURAGED to show that there are other venues for a band to profit from other than just selling mass produced bits of plastic or wax with their music printed on it. Only do this for bands that explicitly support the RIAA and its ilk.
3. I actualy agree on this. Don't pirate music or rather infringe on it. DO make use of fair use and exersize your rights under copyright as the consumer.
4. Why anyone would do this in the first place is beyond me...
5. This should be read up on copyright law and send your representatives a letter experssing your dismay over the abuse of copyright by the RIAA. Perhaps Donate to the EFF or similar agencies. Work to reduce the term of copyright to a reasonable level(did you know it was originally intended as lasting 14 years before public domain?).
I would love to see copyright brought back into an equitable status for all with the rights of everyone recognized and the ability for artists to outlive the so-called ownership of their works.
An artist/creator should be able to temporary have some control over his or her work to utilize and profit from it. He or she should not be able to sit back and profit for the entirety of their lives as well as kick back a good profit for most of their children's lives.
I think the problem is that developers focus on creating a pure speech interface rather than a mixed one.
Also complicating things is the fact that we already use speech to interface with the world around us, other people telephones and such are often talked to while using the computer keyboard and mouse. How is the computer to know what is a command and what is being spoken to someone else?
You either have to offset spoken commands with some token that won't come up in conversation and normal background speech or you have to give the computer context recognition which is also difficult.
I'd like to bring back a revival of latin. Make all speech control software respond to latin phrases while normal speech is carried out in everyday language. Latin would be ideal because it is dead, and has a focus on commands in its grammatical makeup.
I think in general the idea of full reactors spread out over many sites is a bad idea for terrestrial(ie not orbiting or beyond) based operations.
Large scale nuke reactors can be more easily guarded and monitored over a longer term than small-scale battery reactors.
Nuke can be safe but it has to be well monitored and maintained to be so. In other words it involves a long-term commitment, not an unbearable one, but a commitment none-the-less.
Also Chernobyl was due to bad design and poor saftey and maintainence procedures.
Nuke is not 100% safe, but you could also get crushed under a solar panel or more-likely have the chemicals and other pollutants used in making the panel poison you.
Nuke can be safe and clean as well as relatively cheep with proper care and maintenance. It isn't a gift from Maya the Earth Goddess but then again it isn't a scheme by some villain from Captain Planet either.
I really hate to see these kinds of loaws passed. The US constitution is quite clear that you can only prosecute and sentence someone once for a single crime. These laws retroactively sentence people who already have been prosecuted once.
Irrational morality simply means that someone is taking away the rights of others because they feel like it.
Irrational morality is unjust in every case.
There MUST be a reasoning behind taking rights away from another person, and though we may not be able to think anything completely through we are damned able to think of our laws at least part-way through.
It shouldn't matter AT ALL the age depicted. The (Just) reason that child pornography is illegal is to stop the harming of children through its production. Adults have the right and ability to consent to be part of such productions as part of their own free speech rights. Children, almost by definition, do not, and thus their rights are violated when they are used in child pornography.
First in order to be child pornography a child, a real one has to be involved. Cartoon characters are not children and they have no rights to violate. Hand drawn pornography can be considered child pornography if and only if the drawings were done from an actual child model.
Secondly, though this doesn't apply in most cases, it has to be pornographic. Pictures of baby's first bath and similar don't count. Generally there is(and rightly so) less tolerance for what is and is not pornography when children are involved.
The real impetus behind child porn laws that go against those who merely possess or re-distribute the material and do not produce it or harbor those that do, especially once written, drawn, and cartoon porn is made illegal where a child was never involved at all(though if someone is making a lot of written porn they might not be up for jail but a mandatory talk with a psychologist might be in order), is generally to protect those persons' who are pushing for the law sensibilities. Just like segregation protected those same sensibilities by keeping the dark people out of sight, and such laws in the end are only a little less unjust, mainly due to fewer peoples' rights being violated on a generally smaller scale.
Ironically Machiavelli never had a Machiavellian bone in his body. The guy was being honest about how he saw countries being run in The Prince; it wasn't really how he thought they should be run.
This is brought to you by the people to give the old Italian politico farmer a proper memory in the public consciousness committee or PTGTOIPFAPMITPCC
For not agreeing with you that your opinion is correct?
There were in fact Palestinian people who lived on that land who were in fact moved by force away from that land unjustly. Now I am not saying that the formation of the new nation of Israel on the whole was unjust I am merely saying that parts of it were.
The fact that a mention of the mere possibility that it might be gets a call for an apology highlights the presence of injustice and a lack of tolerance for other views.
Israel as a nation has done much good in the world. It has also done much wrong. The same can be said about nearly any nation in the world today.
I did not mean to actually take a side. What I meant to say was that there was a reasonable argument for saying that the land was unjustly taken(aka stolen).
A bus guzzles a lot of gas(or more likely diesel) and as a single person conveyance would be a monstrosity the same could be said for a passanger train.
The monstrosity part only comes in when one factors in what the vehicle is being USED for. Busses, trucks, and railroad engines are more often used for hauling larger loads and the fuel costs dispersed over the load makes them very reasonable even efficient compared to other vehicles.
On the other hand SUVs are often used to commute single persons or even only a few people short distances. Tasks that could easily be done with smaller vehicles.
Thus SUVs are monstrosities generally while trucks, locomotives and buses are generally efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Taken?
Uhm can you at least wait for the first day in office for that?
He was elected to be a leader and well in order to see him do that you have to give him the chance as the lead.
Oh like Neo in the Matrix. He has to goto the capitol and be surrounded by them so the antivirus software in his body can be spread evenly throughout the land!
It was a bad ending for the movie and is no better in real politics. I wish him well tho.
He did save his preferences; how do you think the computer knew what "hot" meant? He may also had a "cold" tea setting as well.
1. Only works for labels that are under the RIAA. Otherwise you are hurting actual artists and depriving yourself of music.
2. WTF? This is what is to be ENCOURAGED to show that there are other venues for a band to profit from other than just selling mass produced bits of plastic or wax with their music printed on it. Only do this for bands that explicitly support the RIAA and its ilk.
3. I actualy agree on this. Don't pirate music or rather infringe on it. DO make use of fair use and exersize your rights under copyright as the consumer.
4. Why anyone would do this in the first place is beyond me...
5. This should be read up on copyright law and send your representatives a letter experssing your dismay over the abuse of copyright by the RIAA. Perhaps Donate to the EFF or similar agencies. Work to reduce the term of copyright to a reasonable level(did you know it was originally intended as lasting 14 years before public domain?).
I would love to see copyright brought back into an equitable status for all with the rights of everyone recognized and the ability for artists to outlive the so-called ownership of their works.
An artist/creator should be able to temporary have some control over his or her work to utilize and profit from it. He or she should not be able to sit back and profit for the entirety of their lives as well as kick back a good profit for most of their children's lives.
I think the problem is that developers focus on creating a pure speech interface rather than a mixed one.
Also complicating things is the fact that we already use speech to interface with the world around us, other people telephones and such are often talked to while using the computer keyboard and mouse. How is the computer to know what is a command and what is being spoken to someone else?
You either have to offset spoken commands with some token that won't come up in conversation and normal background speech or you have to give the computer context recognition which is also difficult.
I'd like to bring back a revival of latin. Make all speech control software respond to latin phrases while normal speech is carried out in everyday language. Latin would be ideal because it is dead, and has a focus on commands in its grammatical makeup.
Not sure, crunchy for your first question, well speaking for it not myself.
As to the second question the answer is tasty with a slight aftertaste burn.
I think in general the idea of full reactors spread out over many sites is a bad idea for terrestrial(ie not orbiting or beyond) based operations.
Large scale nuke reactors can be more easily guarded and monitored over a longer term than small-scale battery reactors.
Nuke can be safe but it has to be well monitored and maintained to be so. In other words it involves a long-term commitment, not an unbearable one, but a commitment none-the-less.
As far as waiting for both camps to agree and tell you which it is:
Do some research and think for yourself!
Oh you want controversy over solar look at how much it costs and how much pollution is produced to make them.
Also Chernobyl was due to bad design and poor saftey and maintainence procedures.
Nuke is not 100% safe, but you could also get crushed under a solar panel or more-likely have the chemicals and other pollutants used in making the panel poison you.
Nuke can be safe and clean as well as relatively cheep with proper care and maintenance. It isn't a gift from Maya the Earth Goddess but then again it isn't a scheme by some villain from Captain Planet either.
They also sell the search engine directly and offer other services though the price is probably a bit inflated.
People want to invest in the winning safe .com and google is that site for most stock jockeys.
Lead paint does the job more thoroughly.
Also with sex offenders if you are proven innocent the brand will still be very hard to remove.
Many of these systems to track offenders don't have adequate procedures in place to take into account false or mistaken entries.
Just like back in the old days the races were separate but equal.
I really hate to see these kinds of loaws passed. The US constitution is quite clear that you can only prosecute and sentence someone once for a single crime. These laws retroactively sentence people who already have been prosecuted once.
It is illegal and for good reason.
Technobling
Prior Art imagining a virtual extendable world:
Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson 1979
Irrational morality simply means that someone is taking away the rights of others because they feel like it.
Irrational morality is unjust in every case.
There MUST be a reasoning behind taking rights away from another person, and though we may not be able to think anything completely through we are damned able to think of our laws at least part-way through.
It shouldn't matter AT ALL the age depicted. The (Just) reason that child pornography is illegal is to stop the harming of children through its production. Adults have the right and ability to consent to be part of such productions as part of their own free speech rights. Children, almost by definition, do not, and thus their rights are violated when they are used in child pornography.
First in order to be child pornography a child, a real one has to be involved. Cartoon characters are not children and they have no rights to violate. Hand drawn pornography can be considered child pornography if and only if the drawings were done from an actual child model.
Secondly, though this doesn't apply in most cases, it has to be pornographic. Pictures of baby's first bath and similar don't count. Generally there is(and rightly so) less tolerance for what is and is not pornography when children are involved.
The real impetus behind child porn laws that go against those who merely possess or re-distribute the material and do not produce it or harbor those that do, especially once written, drawn, and cartoon porn is made illegal where a child was never involved at all(though if someone is making a lot of written porn they might not be up for jail but a mandatory talk with a psychologist might be in order), is generally to protect those persons' who are pushing for the law sensibilities. Just like segregation protected those same sensibilities by keeping the dark people out of sight, and such laws in the end are only a little less unjust, mainly due to fewer peoples' rights being violated on a generally smaller scale.
Ironically Machiavelli never had a Machiavellian bone in his body. The guy was being honest about how he saw countries being run in The Prince; it wasn't really how he thought they should be run.
This is brought to you by the people to give the old Italian politico farmer a proper memory in the public consciousness committee or PTGTOIPFAPMITPCC
Apologize for what?
For not agreeing with you that your opinion is correct?
There were in fact Palestinian people who lived on that land who were in fact moved by force away from that land unjustly. Now I am not saying that the formation of the new nation of Israel on the whole was unjust I am merely saying that parts of it were.
The fact that a mention of the mere possibility that it might be gets a call for an apology highlights the presence of injustice and a lack of tolerance for other views.
Israel as a nation has done much good in the world. It has also done much wrong. The same can be said about nearly any nation in the world today.
I did not mean to actually take a side. What I meant to say was that there was a reasonable argument for saying that the land was unjustly taken(aka stolen).
uhm...really? What about all those fiddly bits mentioned in the bible and in numorous historical texts?
Why would people be fighting over that barren wasteland for thousands of years before this if it was useless?
Well in this case it is at least relevant.
Other than the Palestinians were in fact living there and the way political events turned out where in fact removed by force.
I didn't say it was a particularly Good argument or correct. I did say that their side did have some valid reasoning.
A bus guzzles a lot of gas(or more likely diesel) and as a single person conveyance would be a monstrosity the same could be said for a passanger train.
The monstrosity part only comes in when one factors in what the vehicle is being USED for. Busses, trucks, and railroad engines are more often used for hauling larger loads and the fuel costs dispersed over the load makes them very reasonable even efficient compared to other vehicles.
On the other hand SUVs are often used to commute single persons or even only a few people short distances. Tasks that could easily be done with smaller vehicles.
Thus SUVs are monstrosities generally while trucks, locomotives and buses are generally efficient.