It's a rather large AA battery, from 2000 years ago. Something tells me they used it for more than making their tongues tingle. While jewelry may not be that useful to you, I'm sure the guy who owned it, and his family, appreciated the income provided by something that probably couldn't be done in any other region of the world.
Did you conveniently forget that we went into Iraq not to remove a dictator (by the way read some American History some times because we've supported our share of those) but to secure those non existent weapons of mass destruction?
Not only does America support dictators, but they were the ones who put Hussein in power. If irony could kill...well, ask any number of American soldiers.
I wouldn't call mutual assured destruction an act of diplomacy.
Actually, it sounds like the penultimate in diplomacy. "We both have infinitely large sticks. Perhaps we should both start talking softly." What's sad is how little diplomacy happens when we don't have MAD. Not quite as sad as having enough MAD participants that a lunatic is bound to get access to a Big Red Button somewhere...
My very first thought when hearing about pebble bed reactors was, "Ah, great, a design where the fuel is more expensive to make, is less compact, and leaves even more waste than a non-breeder reactor." And now I hear even the benefits were overstated. Wonderful.
Scientist (on phone): Uh, hi, Jeri Ryan? I'm *scientist* from NASA. We're calling to see if you'd be willing to provide a narrative while we probe Uranus.
Jeri: What?!?! Look, I know I did Co-Ed Call girl back when, but this is too much! *click*
Google homemade ammo. Something tells me the reason you don't see this in North America is because getting ammo is so easy (even in Canada). So why would you need to print the ammo?
You might want to read that article yourself. There's nothing in there about the guns being made in tents, and it specifically states that the AK models made there are usually made from a mish-mash of AK parts from different suppliers... which means they're getting parts either from suppliers or from cast-off non-working guns and assembling guns from them. That's a far cry from making them "from scratch".
The exact phrase is "usually refers to such a rifle composed of a mishmash of parts from various AK rifles". While this may mean they are supplied, it more likely means "a mishmash of parts found on various AK rifles, and made with local materials". Particularly when you recall the statement earlier in the article: The area has long had a reputation for producing unlicenced, home-made copies of firearms using whatever materials are available - more often than not, railway rails, scrap motor vehicles and other scrap metal.
I first learned about this on a TV show about crime in prisons. They had a gun made from a steel shaft pen, fired a.22 bullet. Google pen gun and see the variety of sites that come up. Here's one of the more interesting links I came across. I would be unsurprised if the pen gun there was presented because the program gives $200 for a handgun, and this probably only cost about $25 to make - pure profit.
I think the reason we don't hear a lot about this kind of stuff is that reporting for crimes in prison aren't very popular, and outside of prison it's simply easier to get a manufactured gun, with all the benefits of reliability and ease of use that implies.
Indeed, when someone says, "I'm doing this for my [dead] dad" then fails to do it, it's only reasonable to point out that they let down their [dead] dad.
That's no more offensive than the insinuation that some corpse gives a flying fuck about someone's ability to jump into a pool.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language. The phrase "I swear this on my mother's grave" doesn't hold weight because your mother is going to lose her grave, or come crawling out of it and punish you, if you don't follow through on what you swore, but rather an indication of the importance of your mother, and her grave, to you. Likewise, "I'm doing this for my dad" doesn't imply he thinks his dad will be cheering (although he might think that) but that he's trying to live up to the perceived desires of his father. I'm not sure why anyone would find that offensive without trying really hard. On the other hand, I can see how saying you let your recently deceased father down would be adding insult to injury, and would therefore be offensive.
OTOH, if English is indeed your first language, you're doubtless a troll (and a 4-digit one, nice!), and a dick.
Perhaps, just perhaps, when other people say 'saving money', they mean not spending everything they own, without going into specific details of what they do with what they haven't spent. While the points you raise are important, you're missing the key one that people in North America are typically spending as much as or more than they earn over a given period. This leaves nothing to invest, put into a savings account (which, frankly, is only good to offset unplanned short-term expenses), hide in a sock in your drawers, or anything else that would make it available for you to spend sometime in the future.
No, his payment should reflect whatever he agreement he and the buyer agreed to.
If they can't come to an agreement then they should fall back to the ever popular: have the other guys find and destroy every single unauthorized copy they created in existance.
You forgot the part where the organization should be sued for criminal copyright infringement (copyright infringement with the intent to profit). This includes some horrendous fines, per count, and possible jail time, per count. I wonder just how many of those DVDs they sold...
So the "problem" is actually a case of "working as designed".
Exactly. The "news" here is that the FBI can't penetrate an anonymous network.
Am I the only one that finds this reassuring?
Sounds like the FBI have reassured CP users that TOR is safe for distribution. Next step, disabuse them after a 6-month operation so they can cast a sufficiently wide net.
5) drop something, like a crowbar (AKA come back down again)
6) fire a directed energy weapon at another satellite (AKA come back down again, and again)
7) maneuver and rendezvous with another orbiting body
8) detonate and spread debris throughout orbit
I bet there's a few hundred possibilities I'm missing, but doubling the length of your list without even getting fanciful (like directed energy weapon pointed at the ground, or orbital mind control lasers or something) was trivial.
Yes, a fifth item was missed - interact with stuff in orbit. That covers your 7 and 8. There really aren't very many things you can do. How you do them are numerous, but the details don't generally have to be worried about.
For example, the crowbar. Unless your 'crowbar' is specially designed to ablate in a very predictable manner, and is of sufficient size to actually reach the ground with some real energy, the only advantage it has over throwing rocks at your neighbour is the closeness of said neighbour to your country. For example. Note the size of the 'crowbar' in that picture (where crowbar is defined as some object in space that has been dropped on a terrestrial object). The directed energy weapon has the same limitations.
Really, at our technology level, the only thing worth dropping from space with a weapons advantage are nukes.
Since a copyrights lawyer could reasonably be expected to know that the usage would fall under a fair use defense and therefore the use is authorized by the law they could therefore not under the penalty of perjury truthfully swear that the information in the notification is accurate.
Actually, they could, after first admitting utter incompetence. So I will fervently hope that she either is found to have committed perjury and gets disbarred or is found to be grossly incompetent and negligent and is disbarred. What I expect will happen is that she will keep her license, to the amazement of everyone who isn't a lawyer.
$10k is not a brief case of money. It is a couple small stacks of $100s.
It's been quoted on slashdot before, but the images are worth seeing. This link shows how much various amounts of money would be in $100 bills. $1 million would fit in a grocery bag.
Back up a few hundred years, to Cardinal Richelieu: Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.
Personally, I'm okay if my kids don't have sex at 12, which some of my high school contemporaries had, or even 15, which a fair number of my high school contemporaries had. After all, just how many 24-year-old grandmothers do we need?
Again, assuming she even considered the copyright. A normal person? How naive. A lot of people don't know about DMCA, how it works, or what it's for.
She's not a normal person. She's a lawyer. At the very least, I'd expect her to say to herself, "I've heard of this area of law called copyright law. I wonder if it applies to this situation. Maybe I should ask a colleague in that field..."
What a load of histrionic bullshit. Gitmo? Are you fucking kidding me? You're really lacking an argument so much you have to pull that out? Call him a Nazi child molester and seal the deal while your at it.
Nah, Gitmo is sufficient. Looks like it's time for The Gitmo Law - Like Godwin's Law, but with Gitmo.
Paraphrasing what I read somewhere: You can defeat an enemy with technology - air force, long-range attacks, etc. But to conquer a country, you have to occupy it. That requires boots on the ground.
The evidence seems to bear that out. Based on that premise, the only people who have a chance of conquering the Middle East are the Chinese and the Indians.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a rather large AA battery, from 2000 years ago. Something tells me they used it for more than making their tongues tingle. While jewelry may not be that useful to you, I'm sure the guy who owned it, and his family, appreciated the income provided by something that probably couldn't be done in any other region of the world.
Well, except for the "electricity generation" part.
Yes, there's no evidence at all that electricity was used before the dark ages.
Did you conveniently forget that we went into Iraq not to remove a dictator (by the way read some American History some times because we've supported our share of those) but to secure those non existent weapons of mass destruction?
Not only does America support dictators, but they were the ones who put Hussein in power. If irony could kill...well, ask any number of American soldiers.
I wouldn't call mutual assured destruction an act of diplomacy.
Actually, it sounds like the penultimate in diplomacy. "We both have infinitely large sticks. Perhaps we should both start talking softly." What's sad is how little diplomacy happens when we don't have MAD. Not quite as sad as having enough MAD participants that a lunatic is bound to get access to a Big Red Button somewhere...
My very first thought when hearing about pebble bed reactors was, "Ah, great, a design where the fuel is more expensive to make, is less compact, and leaves even more waste than a non-breeder reactor." And now I hear even the benefits were overstated. Wonderful.
I can see this now....*start dream sequence*
Scientist (on phone): Uh, hi, Jeri Ryan? I'm *scientist* from NASA. We're calling to see if you'd be willing to provide a narrative while we probe Uranus.
Jeri: What?!?! Look, I know I did Co-Ed Call girl back when, but this is too much! *click*
Google homemade ammo. Something tells me the reason you don't see this in North America is because getting ammo is so easy (even in Canada). So why would you need to print the ammo?
You might want to read that article yourself. There's nothing in there about the guns being made in tents, and it specifically states that the AK models made there are usually made from a mish-mash of AK parts from different suppliers... which means they're getting parts either from suppliers or from cast-off non-working guns and assembling guns from them. That's a far cry from making them "from scratch".
The exact phrase is "usually refers to such a rifle composed of a mishmash of parts from various AK rifles". While this may mean they are supplied, it more likely means "a mishmash of parts found on various AK rifles, and made with local materials". Particularly when you recall the statement earlier in the article: The area has long had a reputation for producing unlicenced, home-made copies of firearms using whatever materials are available - more often than not, railway rails, scrap motor vehicles and other scrap metal.
I first learned about this on a TV show about crime in prisons. They had a gun made from a steel shaft pen, fired a .22 bullet. Google pen gun and see the variety of sites that come up. Here's one of the more interesting links I came across. I would be unsurprised if the pen gun there was presented because the program gives $200 for a handgun, and this probably only cost about $25 to make - pure profit.
I think the reason we don't hear a lot about this kind of stuff is that reporting for crimes in prison aren't very popular, and outside of prison it's simply easier to get a manufactured gun, with all the benefits of reliability and ease of use that implies.
Indeed, when someone says, "I'm doing this for my [dead] dad" then fails to do it, it's only reasonable to point out that they let down their [dead] dad.
That's no more offensive than the insinuation that some corpse gives a flying fuck about someone's ability to jump into a pool.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language. The phrase "I swear this on my mother's grave" doesn't hold weight because your mother is going to lose her grave, or come crawling out of it and punish you, if you don't follow through on what you swore, but rather an indication of the importance of your mother, and her grave, to you. Likewise, "I'm doing this for my dad" doesn't imply he thinks his dad will be cheering (although he might think that) but that he's trying to live up to the perceived desires of his father. I'm not sure why anyone would find that offensive without trying really hard. On the other hand, I can see how saying you let your recently deceased father down would be adding insult to injury, and would therefore be offensive.
OTOH, if English is indeed your first language, you're doubtless a troll (and a 4-digit one, nice!), and a dick.
Perhaps, just perhaps, when other people say 'saving money', they mean not spending everything they own, without going into specific details of what they do with what they haven't spent. While the points you raise are important, you're missing the key one that people in North America are typically spending as much as or more than they earn over a given period. This leaves nothing to invest, put into a savings account (which, frankly, is only good to offset unplanned short-term expenses), hide in a sock in your drawers, or anything else that would make it available for you to spend sometime in the future.
No, his payment should reflect whatever he agreement he and the buyer agreed to.
If they can't come to an agreement then they should fall back to the ever popular: have the other guys find and destroy every single unauthorized copy they created in existance.
You forgot the part where the organization should be sued for criminal copyright infringement (copyright infringement with the intent to profit). This includes some horrendous fines, per count, and possible jail time, per count. I wonder just how many of those DVDs they sold...
So the "problem" is actually a case of "working as designed".
Exactly. The "news" here is that the FBI can't penetrate an anonymous network.
Am I the only one that finds this reassuring?
Sounds like the FBI have reassured CP users that TOR is safe for distribution. Next step, disabuse them after a 6-month operation so they can cast a sufficiently wide net.
Polishes some scuffs off his tin foil hat.
The only differences between the two is the relative velocity at intersection and how much of the original payload will be intersecting.
5) drop something, like a crowbar (AKA come back down again)
6) fire a directed energy weapon at another satellite (AKA come back down again, and again)
7) maneuver and rendezvous with another orbiting body
8) detonate and spread debris throughout orbit
I bet there's a few hundred possibilities I'm missing, but doubling the length of your list without even getting fanciful (like directed energy weapon pointed at the ground, or orbital mind control lasers or something) was trivial.
Yes, a fifth item was missed - interact with stuff in orbit. That covers your 7 and 8. There really aren't very many things you can do. How you do them are numerous, but the details don't generally have to be worried about.
For example, the crowbar. Unless your 'crowbar' is specially designed to ablate in a very predictable manner, and is of sufficient size to actually reach the ground with some real energy, the only advantage it has over throwing rocks at your neighbour is the closeness of said neighbour to your country. For example. Note the size of the 'crowbar' in that picture (where crowbar is defined as some object in space that has been dropped on a terrestrial object). The directed energy weapon has the same limitations.
Really, at our technology level, the only thing worth dropping from space with a weapons advantage are nukes.
I'm sure I could be offended by that belief, if I was offended by the beliefs of random people on the internet...
Since a copyrights lawyer could reasonably be expected to know that the usage would fall under a fair use defense and therefore the use is authorized by the law they could therefore not under the penalty of perjury truthfully swear that the information in the notification is accurate.
Actually, they could, after first admitting utter incompetence. So I will fervently hope that she either is found to have committed perjury and gets disbarred or is found to be grossly incompetent and negligent and is disbarred. What I expect will happen is that she will keep her license, to the amazement of everyone who isn't a lawyer.
$10k is not a brief case of money. It is a couple small stacks of $100s.
It's been quoted on slashdot before, but the images are worth seeing. This link shows how much various amounts of money would be in $100 bills. $1 million would fit in a grocery bag.
Back up a few hundred years, to Cardinal Richelieu: Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.
The problem is you're two years behind me. And I have a girlfriend, too.
Personally, I'm okay if my kids don't have sex at 12, which some of my high school contemporaries had, or even 15, which a fair number of my high school contemporaries had. After all, just how many 24-year-old grandmothers do we need?
Again, assuming she even considered the copyright. A normal person? How naive. A lot of people don't know about DMCA, how it works, or what it's for.
She's not a normal person. She's a lawyer. At the very least, I'd expect her to say to herself, "I've heard of this area of law called copyright law. I wonder if it applies to this situation. Maybe I should ask a colleague in that field..."
What a load of histrionic bullshit. Gitmo? Are you fucking kidding me? You're really lacking an argument so much you have to pull that out? Call him a Nazi child molester and seal the deal while your at it.
Nah, Gitmo is sufficient. Looks like it's time for The Gitmo Law - Like Godwin's Law, but with Gitmo.
Paraphrasing what I read somewhere: You can defeat an enemy with technology - air force, long-range attacks, etc. But to conquer a country, you have to occupy it. That requires boots on the ground.
The evidence seems to bear that out. Based on that premise, the only people who have a chance of conquering the Middle East are the Chinese and the Indians.
Actually they didn't the Agriculture department and two private companies did. Monsanto bought the two private companies in 2005 acquiring the rights but they didn't create the genes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
And then they marketed them. So what you're saying is they're useless and evil?