Mars could use some "global warming." Think of it as a start to "terraforming". Think of all the carbon credits (tht should get Al Gore on board). Think of... 4-wheeling up the side of the largest mountain in the known universe - "Hey Mon! it's Mon Olympus, Mon!" Priceless!
WASHINGTON (AP) The FBI acknowledged Wednesday it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from investigations aimed at tracking terrorists and spies.
National security letters are controversial because the FBI issues them without having to get court approval. The lack of protection led a federal judge in New York last year to strike down the practice, which he called "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering."
The Justice Department is appealing that ruling. It has said the data gained from the requests, which are sent directly to financial institutions and phone companies without the knowledge of their customers, is crucial to building terrorism and espionage cases.
Warrantless data mining and wire taps on US citizens by the FBI. Not "international terr'rists".
They're still trading in the pink slips. Tht's why they issued some shares with a strike price of 8 cents when they were around a nickel, then went on this latest crusade to pump the price back up. Nice way to double your money without spending a penny.
as long as you're going to put a person on the surface anyways, there is a lot that they could be doing.
... like dying... makes for bad press, contaminates the environment with earth life, etc.
One of the problems with Spirit and Discovery is that they're too damn small. That's why every move must be so carefully planned. Put something the size of a small car on the surface instead, and you can ignore all those small pebbles when going from point A to point B.
Don't try to rewrite history. You got caught putting words in my mouth, saying I was arguing shit I never said. I called you on it, Look throught the thread for my references to your "straw men". That's reality. Tough shit. sux to be you and all that, but hey, you'll learn - or not.
As for the rest, your illogical arguments underwhelm me.
BTW - do yourself a favour - learn what a non sequitur is. Nobody's fooled.
First of all this is at least a few weeks old. Check Groklaw. Second they are not giving SCO $100 mil outright. They are giving $5 mil with an option to loan another $95 mil over 5 years.
... and they're even backtracking on the whole deal now, saying it depends on due diligence, etc...
It's YASPS - "Yet Another Stock Pump Scheme". Darl, contrary to his public protests, is VERY happy to be getting out/cashing out.
The reality of large Mars missions is that the human is only along for the ride, sort of like a color commentator, to help snare the public's imagination and more funding.
Bullshit. If the mars mission is actually doing useful work, then having people physically there will make the work much more efficient. Humans on mars can make decisions in real time. The latency of radio signals makes trying to do anything significant remotely really obnoxious.
2 words -semi-autonomus systems.
Why would you think of trying to control anything in "real time" from earth? Higher-level constructs make more sense.
A single command sequence could be "Go to coordinate x,y; take pics; grab a sample of soil; make spectrographic analysis; report; wait for instructions". Send it and forget it.
So every system except the human will be doubly or triply redundant? What's wrong with this picture?
The reality of large Mars missions is that the human is only along for the ride, sort of like a color commentator, to help snare the public's imagination and more funding.
In other words, even one human is already redundant. After all, what can go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong go I'm sorry Dave.
The problem is that, with this administration, any claims of domestic spying are hardly "extraordinary". It's more like "business as usual" - to be assumed unless there's evidence to the contrary.
Before copyright, the number of years of protection for a work was zero.
As such, any term greater than zero is arbitrary, and needs to be justified. That justification is given in the concept that the purpose of copyright was to stimulate the arts by rewarding individuals for their efforts. 20 years should be more than enough time to reap those rewards. Its not a perpetual license, which, rather than stimulating the arts, stifles them.
Why not have clients that can mesh with each other in a lily-pad? Not everything has to be client-server.
The only thing 2 computers need to talk to each other is the ip address and the port. Give that to them, and you can then drop out of the conversation. Its not like you need to relay the contents of the messages as well.
You still haven't told me what you've done to make more and stricter seatbelt laws a reality, by the way.
They're the law where I live. Before they were the law, I insisted that everyone in the car buckle up. I'd never vote for a candidate who would weaken the law, etc., etc., etc.
But of course, that is all far away from the main bit, which started all this, which is that nobody has a right to "free speech" on a private network, and nobody has a "right" to drive, never mind a "right" to "take their safety into their own hands" and ignore seatbelt laws. The only person here who is acting in a paternalistic manner is you - you insist that YOU know better than voters, everyone who voted for them, etc.
Keep thinking that... everyone has the right to be wrong.
The concept of rights is neither invoked in, nor necessary to my sentiments
Simple-minded rationlization - but what else would I expect.
the seatbelt law is unnecessary and intrusive
Really? You've already indicated that you see no problem with a form of darwinism "taking care of the problem" of people too stupid to use seatbelts - and you have the nerve to accuse me of being callous.
2 points:
The seatbelt law isn't intrusive - you are NOT required to drive on public roads. It's a shared resource, like bandwidth. Play by the rules, or fuck off;
The seatbelt law is necessary - before the law was enacted, fewer people wore seat belts. Now, more do. They also belt their kids since they have no choice now (its not like the kids are able to exercise judgment)
Before the law, it was 6.4% restraint use for children aged 0 to 11 years and 14.7% for drivers. Now its' well over 90%. Or do you think that kids should be maimed for life so that parents can exercise their "right" not to wear a seatbelt?
And no, this isn't a "think of the children" thing - too many adults (over 85%) were being equally childish wrt seatbelt use.
Besides, when you really get down to it, you have no "rights" except those accorded by law. There is no such thing as a "natural right" - the universe doesn't give 2 shits about humans one way or the other.
Extended copyright discourages innovation by encouraging people to "rest on their laurels". 50 years is too much. 20 years should be more than enough.
You could also say that it encourages innovation because people have to iterate over the same subject several times, making new variations of it. Instead of just copying something old.
... erm, except we're talking copyright, not patents. You know, stuff like literature, music, software (except where the USPTO has screwed up).
Customers wanting to rip their DVD collections to their computers, download music they can play on any device, or incorporate copyrighted works into original creative works find that there is no straightforward, legal way to do these things.
That's because in RIAA Amerika, DVD rips YOU!
What amazes me is the absolute whining about the "need to extend copyright beyond 50 years because people are living longer, and a writer con't be able to make (even more) money in their old age off something they created when they were young." Extended copyright discourages innovation by encouraging people to "rest on their laurels". 50 years is too much. 20 years should be more than enough.
You lied. You put words in my mouth, said I said things I didn't (the whole "strawman" thing).Every time I point out another inconsistency, you change the topic. Kitchen getting to hot?
So, what would you call "fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands"? You don't believe that's saying you should have the "right" to control your own activities wrt safety / seatbelts / etc?
Fact is, the seatbelt laws are mostly passed by state legislatures looking to increase revenue collection--"we" didn't have anything to do with it.
As you point out, seatbelt laws are enacted by the state, and enforced by municipal and state police. So, are you going to try to say that nobody voted for the people who make the laws, and the people (mayors, etc) who boss the people who enforce the laws? Soviet Amerika?
I'm against the death penalty, too.
Again, what are you doing about it if you're "against" it? And are you against it all the time, or would you support it for, say, serial rapists, serial killers, mass murderers, crimes against humanity, people like Hitler?
Its easy to say "I'm against the death penalty." If you're so against it, move to a country that doesn't have it. Or lobby against it. Work for a candidate who's against it. Inaction just means that you don't have the courage of your convictions.
By the way, I never said anything about rights in this discussion. Check on it.
-whether or not I wear a seatbelt principally affects my safety. Not yours. So fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands.
Quite clear that you think that you should have the "right" to decide whether to wear a seatbelt or not... that you consider the law to be an infringement on your "rights".
Switch to KDE. Hold down alt key, and any non-maximized window is now draggable from ANY part of the window, including the text area I'm typing in now. And that works with all apps, not just browsers.
If you want to talk about a truly inane position, let's examine your position that the law is always right
Ah, another strawman argument from the man with straw for brains.
Where did I say the law was always right? Oh, right, I never did.
You have to lie to try to back up your position... so pitiful.
Read the title of the thread - "Free speech doesn't extend to private property." You lost that one. You also fail, in your pitifully confused arguments, to recognize that driving a car isn't a "right". Since it isn't a right, we have the right to set rules. If that includes sedatbelts, tough shit. As I pointed out, your options are to either not drive, drive wearing a seatbelt, or drive and pay the consequent fines. Nobody is infringing on your "freedom" in any of those cases.
None of the examples you quote involves the licensed use of public property - get over it, and get over yourself. you're not as smart as you think you are, and it shows.
Taken to their logical conclusions, your views would justify the coercive sterilization of the mentally handicapped and the wholesale application of involuntary euthanasia.
Another straw argument from someone who has already demonstrated they don't understand logic in the first place. However, it is true that I would certainly not object to you being sterilized. Or retroactively aborted, or anything else that will make you squak with self-righteous indignation about your "rights". BTW - last I looked, the US is the capital when it comes to involuntary euthanasia - except its called the death penalty. Instead of complaining about wearing a seatbelt, or not having the right to free speech on private property, why not do something about that mess? Oh, right, too complicated an issue for you.
*yawn*
Having established who and what you are, I can only accept your contempt as the highest honor you could ever bestow on me. I should be ashamed to ever earn your respect.
Again, you flatter yourself if you think you are important enough to rate my contemt. I only find you and your arguments to be stupid.
You know, you never see Bush and Castro in the same picture... like Clark Kent and Superman...
... except that Castro wasn't a coward who had daddy pull strings for him, isn't a drunken coke-head, etc.
You know, you never see Cheney and Castro in the same picture... like... nah - if Castro pointed a gun at your head and pulled the trigger, drunk or not, you'd be dead...
You know, you never see Condaleeza Rice and Castro in the same picture...
I backtracked through the whole thread and only found two links, neither of which directly support your argument that seatbelt usage reduces health care and insurance costs for others. And I'm not going to waste my time looking up support for your arguments. That's your job.
Guess you need to brush up on your "133t" reading 5k1775" a bit more...
Then again, you have to flatter yourself - after looking at your arguments, nobody else would. You come off exactly as you are - a snot-nosed know-nothing who should have been held behind a few years more, no experience in the "real world", non-existent logic skills, poor research and debating ability, whose childish responses can best be summed up as "lalala i can't here u i have my fingers in my ears lalalala".
Yes, and you are a paragon of restraint and maturity by comparison.
Finally, something we can both agree on. Remember, you're the one who tried to claim that people had no right to dictate whether you be required to wear a seatbelt or not. Experience, the concept of democratic legislation, and the law ALL say you're wrong, which is why you haven't been able to justify your really inane position. This level of "critical, incisive thinking" is just what McDonalds is looking for at Hamburger U.
Who should I trust? Some blogger that writes a sensationalist article that uses a star wars reference and can't be bothered to read his own sources, or a wiki article that lists proper sources? Decisions, decisions...
It depends... if Jimbo himself was involved in the edits... that $325 per bottle champaigne he's charged to Wikipedia may have clouded his judgment. like this, etc, etc.
The problem is that we see the star as it was 6500 years ago. As far as we know, it could have already exploded, and a good bunch of gamma rays be coming to us right now. So you were right, we're doomed ^^
It'll at least spare us any more Chillary.
Oh, wait - we're doomed either way. F$ck! I knew I should have stayed in bed!
Slashdot Mirror
Mars could use some "global warming." Think of it as a start to "terraforming". Think of all the carbon credits (tht should get Al Gore on board). Think of ... 4-wheeling up the side of the largest mountain in the known universe - "Hey Mon! it's Mon Olympus, Mon!" Priceless!
In light of todays' revelations that the FBI has admitted to more domestic spying on US citizens
It's not limited to the New York Times. Here's a quote from the Associated Press
From the LA Times
Warrantless data mining and wire taps on US citizens by the FBI. Not "international terr'rists".
They're still trading in the pink slips. Tht's why they issued some shares with a strike price of 8 cents when they were around a nickel, then went on this latest crusade to pump the price back up. Nice way to double your money without spending a penny.
One of the problems with Spirit and Discovery is that they're too damn small. That's why every move must be so carefully planned. Put something the size of a small car on the surface instead, and you can ignore all those small pebbles when going from point A to point B.
Don't try to rewrite history. You got caught putting words in my mouth, saying I was arguing shit I never said. I called you on it, Look throught the thread for my references to your "straw men". That's reality. Tough shit. sux to be you and all that, but hey, you'll learn - or not.
As for the rest, your illogical arguments underwhelm me.
BTW - do yourself a favour - learn what a non sequitur is. Nobody's fooled.
It's YASPS - "Yet Another Stock Pump Scheme". Darl, contrary to his public protests, is VERY happy to be getting out/cashing out.
2 words -semi-autonomus systems.
Why would you think of trying to control anything in "real time" from earth? Higher-level constructs make more sense.
A single command sequence could be "Go to coordinate x,y; take pics; grab a sample of soil; make spectrographic analysis; report; wait for instructions". Send it and forget it.
The reality of large Mars missions is that the human is only along for the ride, sort of like a color commentator, to help snare the public's imagination and more funding.
In other words, even one human is already redundant. After all, what can go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong go I'm sorry Dave.
The problem is that, with this administration, any claims of domestic spying are hardly "extraordinary". It's more like "business as usual" - to be assumed unless there's evidence to the contrary.
Before copyright, the number of years of protection for a work was zero.
As such, any term greater than zero is arbitrary, and needs to be justified. That justification is given in the concept that the purpose of copyright was to stimulate the arts by rewarding individuals for their efforts. 20 years should be more than enough time to reap those rewards. Its not a perpetual license, which, rather than stimulating the arts, stifles them.
Why not have clients that can mesh with each other in a lily-pad? Not everything has to be client-server.
The only thing 2 computers need to talk to each other is the ip address and the port. Give that to them, and you can then drop out of the conversation. Its not like you need to relay the contents of the messages as well.
They're the law where I live. Before they were the law, I insisted that everyone in the car buckle up. I'd never vote for a candidate who would weaken the law, etc., etc., etc.
But of course, that is all far away from the main bit, which started all this, which is that nobody has a right to "free speech" on a private network, and nobody has a "right" to drive, never mind a "right" to "take their safety into their own hands" and ignore seatbelt laws. The only person here who is acting in a paternalistic manner is you - you insist that YOU know better than voters, everyone who voted for them, etc.
Keep thinking that ... everyone has the right to be wrong.
Simple-minded rationlization - but what else would I expect.
Really? You've already indicated that you see no problem with a form of darwinism "taking care of the problem" of people too stupid to use seatbelts - and you have the nerve to accuse me of being callous.
2 points:
-
The seatbelt law isn't intrusive - you are NOT required to drive on public roads. It's a shared resource, like bandwidth. Play by the rules, or fuck off;
-
The seatbelt law is necessary - before the law was enacted, fewer people wore seat belts. Now, more do. They also belt their kids since they have no choice now (its not like the kids are able to exercise judgment)
Before the law, it was 6.4% restraint use for children aged 0 to 11 years and 14.7% for drivers. Now its' well over 90%. Or do you think that kids should be maimed for life so that parents can exercise their "right" not to wear a seatbelt?And no, this isn't a "think of the children" thing - too many adults (over 85%) were being equally childish wrt seatbelt use.
Besides, when you really get down to it, you have no "rights" except those accorded by law. There is no such thing as a "natural right" - the universe doesn't give 2 shits about humans one way or the other.
Profit? What profit? Didn't you see the bit about "online ads revenue was inflated"?
That's because in RIAA Amerika, DVD rips YOU!
What amazes me is the absolute whining about the "need to extend copyright beyond 50 years because people are living longer, and a writer con't be able to make (even more) money in their old age off something they created when they were young." Extended copyright discourages innovation by encouraging people to "rest on their laurels". 50 years is too much. 20 years should be more than enough.
Nice try hiding behind Godwin.
You lied. You put words in my mouth, said I said things I didn't (the whole "strawman" thing).Every time I point out another inconsistency, you change the topic. Kitchen getting to hot?
So, what would you call "fuck your paternalistic laws, my safety should be in my hands"? You don't believe that's saying you should have the "right" to control your own activities wrt safety / seatbelts / etc?
Hey, maybe English isn't your first language ...
BTW - take your meds.
As you point out, seatbelt laws are enacted by the state, and enforced by municipal and state police. So, are you going to try to say that nobody voted for the people who make the laws, and the people (mayors, etc) who boss the people who enforce the laws? Soviet Amerika?
Again, what are you doing about it if you're "against" it? And are you against it all the time, or would you support it for, say, serial rapists, serial killers, mass murderers, crimes against humanity, people like Hitler?
Its easy to say "I'm against the death penalty." If you're so against it, move to a country that doesn't have it. Or lobby against it. Work for a candidate who's against it. Inaction just means that you don't have the courage of your convictions.
You're such a liar. Here's what you wrote here Quite clear that you think that you should have the "right" to decide whether to wear a seatbelt or notTake your meds.
Switch to KDE. Hold down alt key, and any non-maximized window is now draggable from ANY part of the window, including the text area I'm typing in now. And that works with all apps, not just browsers.
Free sometimes IS better ...
Ah, another strawman argument from the man with straw for brains.
Where did I say the law was always right? Oh, right, I never did.
You have to lie to try to back up your position ... so pitiful.
Read the title of the thread - "Free speech doesn't extend to private property." You lost that one. You also fail, in your pitifully confused arguments, to recognize that driving a car isn't a "right". Since it isn't a right, we have the right to set rules. If that includes sedatbelts, tough shit. As I pointed out, your options are to either not drive, drive wearing a seatbelt, or drive and pay the consequent fines. Nobody is infringing on your "freedom" in any of those cases.
None of the examples you quote involves the licensed use of public property - get over it, and get over yourself. you're not as smart as you think you are, and it shows.
Another straw argument from someone who has already demonstrated they don't understand logic in the first place. However, it is true that I would certainly not object to you being sterilized. Or retroactively aborted, or anything else that will make you squak with self-righteous indignation about your "rights". BTW - last I looked, the US is the capital when it comes to involuntary euthanasia - except its called the death penalty. Instead of complaining about wearing a seatbelt, or not having the right to free speech on private property, why not do something about that mess? Oh, right, too complicated an issue for you.*yawn*
Again, you flatter yourself if you think you are important enough to rate my contemt. I only find you and your arguments to be stupid.
You know, you never see Bush and Castro in the same picture ... like Clark Kent and Superman ...
You know, you never see Cheney and Castro in the same picture ... like ... nah - if Castro pointed a gun at your head and pulled the trigger, drunk or not, you'd be dead ...
You know, you never see Condaleeza Rice and Castro in the same picture ...
Taken your meds lately?
It depends ... if Jimbo himself was involved in the edits ... that $325 per bottle champaigne he's charged to Wikipedia may have clouded his judgment. like this, etc, etc.
it is a little known fact that the editors are shells
Oops, mis-spelled "shills" again! Maybe next time I'll use "preview".
Seriously, this is one f'ed up article.
It'll at least spare us any more Chillary.
Oh, wait - we're doomed either way. F$ck! I knew I should have stayed in bed!