Regarding the "false negatives" bit in the summary:
The story is that an individual made an FOIA request to the FBI for some specific information.
The FBI claimed that no such information was available.
The claimant found out in the meantime that such information WAS available and had been previously provided by the FBI as the result of another FOIA request, and, as such, requested a court order the FBI to provide it again.
The FBI is arguing that its search was reasonable within department regulations and guidelines, and that it cannot and should not be expected to always undercover every single possible document in response to every request. And documents being indexed electronically doesn't make it as easy as one might think: it's precisely because documents are indexed electronically that is creating the difficulty: the FBI is claiming, essentially, that it can't predict every possibly keyword it should associate with a document for search purposes, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable if it misses documents during a good-faith search.
Whether or not the FBI was intentionally hiding OKBOMB memos, etc., is another story altogether.
Additionally, the article summary is awfully pessimistic: we don't yet know how DOJ will respond to this request. Perhaps it itself hasn't determined whether or not it considers "URLs" to be subject to pen-trap regulations. Additionally, for those who didn't RTFA:
At issue is PATRIOT Section 216, which expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations using pen registers or trap and trace devices ( "pen-traps" ). Pen-traps collect information about the numbers dialed on a telephone but do not record the actual content of phone conversations. Because of this limitation, court orders authorizing pen-trap surveillance are easy to get -- instead of having to show probable cause, the government need only certify relevance to its investigation. Also, the government never has to inform people that they are or were the subjects of pen-trap surveillance.
Remember, pen-traps were already allowed before PATRIOT. At issue is what exactly PATRIOT's expansion to these provisions further allows. It clearly has been determined to allow email addresses and IP addresses. However, whose IP addresses? The suspect, or a host the suspect is visiting? It would seem clear to me that, virtual hosting aside, if the a target host's IP may be logged, and since DNS names, embodied here as "URLs" and IP are very obviously interrelated, again, virtual hosts aside, it seems this argument is somewhat of a smokescreen to force debate on whether or not pen-traps in general should be allowed.
And since they were allowed before PATRIOT, the answer seems clear: if PATRIOT's expansions to the existing statues to accommodate new communications technologies were appropriate, all that's left is determining what exactly is included. And if "IP addresses" are included, which would logically include target hosts, it would seem that DNS names used to arrive at said IP addresses are intrinsic to the nature of their usage. So disagree with pen-traps if you want, but don't rant and rave about PATRIOT, because it's not about that (though many would desperately want you to think so).
So apparently it's ok to take others' work that doesn't belong to you, and, perhaps because you've put a little work into it yourself, and don't fundamentally agree with regional releases, it can be rationalized that it must be "ok" to use and release it for free! And then when a content owner does come along and actually take notice (because if they didn't notice before, certainly that means it was tacitly approved of, even though you didn't ask permission, because certainly *everyone* must be aware of your phenomenal work!), you'll come up with further reasonings why you don't have to respond to the letter or spirit of their request!
Congratulations; you put up one hell of a fight against that straw man.
Heh, tha....
Oh. You're serious.
I may not have been responding directly to anyone in particular with my post, but, I assure you, the argument is quite real.
is concealing from them the WMD's we all know were found in Iraq after all?
I know (or at least hope) you're just kidding around here, but, if you're not: Wha??
No sane person, or, indeed anyone I've ever heard talk on this topic, has ever said that we "really found" WMD in Iraq (aside from the fact that we did indeed find trace amounts of WMD in Iraq several times [and I am NOT saying that is a justification], and hundreds of tons of WMD and WMD constituents are, to this day, unaccounted for.
It has not occurred to you that people think this team lies because we were told repeatedly (and simultaneously denied that we were told) that this administration knew he had 'em, knew where they were (and had 8x10 color glossies with circles and arrows) and knew he had em pointed at us? Not suspected, knew.
Hmm. As I've said countless times in the past (though not to you), this war as NOT ABOUT WMD. WMD was tangential, at best. Yes, it was used as the primary justification because 1.) It was a simple one, and 2.) The myriad other vastly more important reasons we went into Iraq (i.e., part of an omnibus, comprehensive effort to begin affecting change in the mideast was as limited of resources as possible) would be too difficult to wrap up into 10 second soundbites. But, if you listen to the speeches and read the publications of the likes of Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, it's crystal clear what our policy is.
And, on top of that, Iraq did have WMD. Hundreds of tons of it. It was still known to be in possession of said WMD in 1998, when the UN pulled the weapons inspectors for lack of effectiveness after Saddam continually accused them of being US spies. Iraq NEVER fully cooperated with the weapons inspectors, was in egregious violation of binding UNSEC resolutions multiple times, and believed itself (in the person of Saddam) to be massively investing in WMD, including nuclear, programs. Not to mention that this thought was echoed by the intelligence community of Germany, France, Russia, the UK, ourselves, and the intelligence capabilities of the UN proper. Now, as to whether the threat was *imminent* or *actionable* was a subject of fierce debate. And, as inspectors hadn't been in Iraq for 5 years, we frankly had no idea what the fuck was going on, and neither did they. To paraphrase Rice: are we to believe that after 1998, once inspectors left, and when Saddam had never fully cooperated before, AND Iraq was known to be in possession of WMD *at that time*, that Iraq suddenly had a change of heart, and with no supervision or verification, simply destroyed the remaining hundreds of tons of WMD, all without any proof, paperwork, or even reasonable mechanisms to do so? THAT is a fucking laugh, right there, my friend. This, of course, says nothing about the 650,000 tons (yes, that is the correct number) of intact UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces. And we didn't "admit" that there are no WMDs in Iraq, as some blogs claimed. We simply said it's not worth expending any more resources looking. Many probably found their way to places like the Sudan and Syria. Who knows.
Or because we were told in every imaginable way that Saddam et al were involved in the attacks of September 11, and that that date never failed to appear in the diatribe justifying the invasion?
You, sir, are a blithering dumbass. NO ONE in ANY media, nor anyone in the administration EVER said that Iraq and/or Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11, ever. ALL major media outlets referred repeatedly, ad nauseum, to the fact that bin Laden was the architect of 9/11, that bin Laden was Saudi, and that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Additionally, the information your assertion is based on is
Hello. Thank you for replying with a reasonable post.
You say want an honest debate, and yet you go out of your way to insult, belittle and demean those you wish to engage in debate. Fair enough.
I have not gone out of my way. This is routine. I live in Madison, WI, where the person who murdered an Army mathematics researcher by bombing a University building during the Vietnam war now runs a popular deli downtown next to the campus. You know, just so you know where I'm coming from.
Now, let's be honest. Which of the following two scenarios strikes you as most plausible?
Actually, it's closer to 2.) than anything, if those are my only options.
However, this brings up some of the hypocrisy: if we had trouble finding the WMD (for example, it is KNOWN that 720 *tons* of Sarin alone is unaccounted for), it was because we didn't have enough manpower. But we're supposed to be pulling troops out? So which is it, fundamentally? More, or less?
On Abu Ghraib: so you're saying that because, in your opinion, we probably commited thousands of acts of sodomy, rape, beating, near-drowning and 'accidental' homocide on prisoners of war back in World War II that it really isn't a big deal for us to continue to sodomize, rape, beat, near-drown and 'accidentally' kill prisoners of war today. Is this correct?
Yes. However: I don't defend it. I don't condone it. But I realize that is the nature of a wartime situation. I concede that the conditions that lead to such acts are a large set of variables, which can certainly be minimized. I'll concede things like having inexperienced reserve or guard soldiers, or a reserve officer whose normal job is selling window coverings as a commander of a military prison can contribute to these conditions. However, I have a capability to see the big picture. You're damned right I can overlook - not excuse, but, on balance, overlook - Abu Ghraib when the beginning of the big picture is what happened on 30 January.
60%! Fuck! We don't even get that in the US! These people are ready for modernization, freedom, and religious pluralism.
If continuing sanctions were the only alternative to going in, what of the estimated 50,000/year Iraqis - over 600,000 - dead during said sanctions, supposedly as a direct result of the sanctions process, according to organizations like Amnesty International? That situation showed no signs of ending. So, our action will actually directly result, over a slightly longer term, in the clear net preservation of Iraqi life. It astounds me that people can't accept some collateral or short term consequences for a much larger positive payoff. It further astounds me that some people can't even see that payoff.
Perhaps there are some who would say there should never have been sanctions and we should never have gotten involved with Iraq the first time around. To those people I would ask: are you against everything that has built our civilization, in no small part the petroleum economy? Try not to think about fat rednecks or soccer moms driving Suburbans and Excursions for a second. Think about plastics, and medical equipment, and food processing, water treatment, fertilizers, energy for manufacturing, and the happiness and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. Try to also ask yourself if we're content with letting millions of people live in backwards, repressive regimes. Peace in the mideast is a real prospect! Bush is the first president to ever suggest an autonomous Palestine. The administration is a group of a few people who again understand the importance of the spread of democracy around the world, not ONLY for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others! This is really the dream! All some can think of is things like "Halliburton" and "$9B unaccounted for by Coalition Provisional Authority". Sure, those are a part of it. But not all of it! And frankly, not even most of it. Or, more accurately, really any of it.
No one wants to have an honest debate about any of these topics.
How can we have any type of debate - much less an honest one - about foreign policy when these liberal pseudo-intellectual blog-readers think, quite literally, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, or anyone remotely conservative/Republican, or, God forbid, *neoconservative*, are the worst kind of evil incarnate, whose only wish is to continue lining their pockets at the expense of US troops, and especially the "brownskins"? That there are no other considerations at all, that Panislamic radicalism isn't real (and if it is, it's exclusively the fault of the US and no one else), that "conservative" automatically equals "ultra right wing fundamentalist Bible thumper", and only liberal/progressive people know what's best, and everyone else, ESPECIALLY people who voted for Bush, are either complete and utterly moronic victims of neocon propaganda, OR the greedy fat cats who want more riches at the expense of the rest of the world?
Fuck, these people talk about *Bush* having a "black and white" view? Damn. I've said it before: these are the most closed-minded "open-minded" people on earth.
And it's precisely because of this fucking rampant nonsensical yammering on the internet that people don't know left from right or up from down and read everything that reinforces this idea they've internalized for whatever reason that anything having to do with corporations, business, or conservative policy is EVIL, and only liberal/progressive/quasi-socialist ideas are good; that military action is never proper (unless instantiated by a liberal), and ESPECIALLY any preemptive action; that there is only one side to the story: theirs, and they can throw to the wind the concept that 25 million people are FREE, and that this freedom is not "imposed", and indeed cannot be, because freedom is the default state; that it is acceptable for the United States to fight for its own interests and those of its allies, and that there are very real threats that have been growing in this region for the last two decades that Europe chooses to ignore (or, possibly let the US handle so they can simultaneously have their problems solved while also not looking like the bad guy, and having a responsible party like the US to blame for any problems, to boot); and I could go on.
If people have any question WHY we are in Iraq, they should read this recent post, as I believe it is my least long-winded writing on the topic.
These leftist bloggers that have so captivated this loony left want all the rights and privileges of "journalism" - indeed, many paint themselves as the only TRUE journalists, while all the "corporate" media is simply the collective mouthpiece of the Bush administration - but want none of the responsibility. To this argument, they may hide in the refuge of "Oh, but we never said we were journalists! It's just our opinion! We have no obligation to do or say anything!" but they know damned well they're influencing people with their incendiary, extremely one-sided rhetoric, that ignores the fortunes of millions of people, including our own.
We would never have the collective national will for a World War II-scale military campaign again. If today's technology existed then, there would have been hundreds of "Abu Ghraibs", and I shudder to think of what kind of despotic totalitarian world we live in had we not the will to fight for what is right, not only for ourselves, but for all people: and that is freedom. Liberals, especially slashdot readers, will no doubt laugh endlessly at this, thinking about their last lame list of failed US military actions, or travesties they believe were prosecuted by the US in the name of profits, or some other liberal vomit du jour. Or perhaps they'll choke on the hypocrisy of things like simultaneously blasting the Bush administration for sending troops to Iraq - then saying we don't have ENOUGH tr
- Optical digital 5.1 audio in/out on the 17" - Dual link DVI on the 17" (for 2560x1600 30" display support) - A new era: 512MB RAM stock on all models
...that (as of this posting) 28 of the 42 comments - 66% - to the blog post referenced in the summary are people spamming their "free Mac mini" referral links, some totally brazenly?
Since these schemes are classically mathematically pyramidal by nature, how long before this bullshit overtakes blogs and forums just as the "MAKE MONEY FAST" shit on USENET did?
Nobody said you personally were advocating stealing content.
(If this is the same AC)
Then why make that implication in the post? The "whining" bit and all? If it wasn't directly in response to my post, then what was it? Specifically explain the purpose of that statement if not to somehow insinuate I was "whining" about content providers trying to protect their content (which I wasn't), ostensibly to prevent it from being stolen.
(However, guilty conscience?)
No, anonymous dipshit, because not only do I not advocate stealing such content, I don't do it. But again, nice try trying to cleverly tie me and my argument to content theft, or imply that I must do it, if I'm arguing for the content providers to simply respond to the prevailing marketplace.
1. I'm not advocating stealing the content, copyright infringement, or anything along those lines, so your entire post and the locking doors analogy is invalid.
2. Well, why *don't* they move into a new medium? Or are you saying they should have just stuck with OTA delivery, instead of cable and satellite? Or maybe VHS? Or perhaps film? Or maybe hand-drawn flipbooks? The internet and various media formats are just another delivery mechanism which they should be JUMPING at, AND making a lot of money doing, to boot! This isn't about anyone stealing, this is about content providers responding to the marketplace.
Not surprisingly, the repercussions - particularly the rapidly growing number of shows available for the plucking online - terrify industry executives, who remember only too well what Napster and other file-sharing programs did to the music industry. They fret that if unchecked, rampant trading of files will threaten the riches of the relatively new and surprisingly lucrative television DVD business. It could endanger sales of television shows to international markets and into syndication.
Then why don't they fucking sell their shit online in a convenient, reliable format? Or don't they want to learn from the music industry, instead ignoring the solutions and only imagining the problems?
And it could further endanger what for the past 50 years has been television's economic linchpin: the 30-second commercial.
That *particular* business model is dying, and legislation should not protect it, just as "horseless carriages" shouldn't be required to carry horse whips to keep horse whip manufacturers in business. Note I didn't say *advertizing* or commercialism is dying, because it isn't. Merchants have managed to get information about their products to people, and subsequently have them purchased, over the years and through changing technology. Tomorrow will be no different. It's just that the volume of revenue from "forced" advertising, supporting $1M/show paychecks for actors, might not still be there.
SideTrack is a replacement driver for the Apple PowerBook and iBook trackpads. With SideTrack installed your standard trackpad becomes a powerful multi-button scrolling mouse.
Leave your external mouse at home and take full control over your trackpad:
- Vertical scrolling at left or right edge of pad. - Horizontal scrolling at top or bottom edge of pad. - Map hardware button to left or right click. - Map trackpad taps to no action, left click, left click drag (with or without drag lock), or right click. - Map trackpad corner taps to mouse buttons 1-6 or simulated keystrokes. - Extensive control over accidental input filtering.
SideTrack is multiuser aware and fully compatible with MacOS X 10.3 fast user switching (FUS). Every user on your PowerBook can have different settings depending on their needs.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple moves silently away from the one-button paradigm, as they have been for years. Remember: this article isn't *Apple* justifying a one-button mouse; it's some random person doing it. So don't interpret this as Apple or anyone related to it "digging in" about a one-button mouse.
Funny how well-written Mac applications, and indeed most Mac applications, all do take sensible, full advantage of contextual menus. Of course, it shouldn't be arbitrarily polluted with crap, or used extensively inappropriately.
Additionally, it seems that you seem to have missed that about 72% of eligible Iraqi voters turned out, some literally in tears at the prospect of voting, and only 40 people were killed the entire election day by a determined insurgency in a country of over 25 million people. Additionally, Zogby polling within Iraq at polling places showed that over 58% of Iraqis believe there should be religious pluralism and freedom, with less than 30% favoring some form of Islamic council, and a significantly smaller percentage (~1%) favoring a Taliban style Islamic theocracy. But, I'm sure it makes you feel better to gloss over all of this, and think that Bush & Co. are on some evil mission to dominate the entire globe and turn the US into a police state, while spreading propaganda to keep Americans in fear to allow them to continue warmongering to line their pockets, instead of actually considering the truth that even Kerry understood about the threat of Panislamic radicalism in the mideast, and the fact that the US's economy, as well as that of our allies in Europe, is heavily intertwined with the stability of the petroleum economy. And before you say "UM, DUDE, IRAQ WASN'T A HOTBED FOR TERROR, IT WAS ALL LIES", read the fucking link
Nice way to work in *Iraq* in a fucking article about single-button mice, though...
Look at Photoshop for a really good example of this as the right-button still doesn't do anything particularly useful in the Windows version, which is a side effect of the Mac heritage.
How is this Apple's fault, when the OS has natively supported two button mice for the better part of a decade? How many major Photoshop releases have there been in this time? This would almost be akin to Photoshop still being a 16-bit application, because Windows was once 16-bit in the past, but then blaming it on Microsoft's "heritage".
Again, how is this Apple's fault, in recent times, i.e., the last 7 or so years? Additionally, your Photoshop argument falls down because 1.) control-click has worked for right-click functionality for years, meaning that Adobe could have added full contextual menu capability at any time, and still have expected customers to get full functionality without expecting or requiring them to have a multi-button mouse, and 2.) hundreds of other applications, including Mac OS itself, take sensible, full advantage of a second mouse button or scroll wheel, and have for years. Think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Answer: it's not Apple's fault. Also, Maya is not used by any statistically significant portion of the Mac's userbase, so that's a really poor example. The design is simple: excluding fringe examples like Maya, applications should full work with a one-button mouse. But, if you would like, you can add a two-button mouse, or a scroll wheel mouse or three-button mouse, and instantly take advantage of added functionality with no drivers, configuration, or modification of any kind.
I don't think it's me who's trolling here, "buddy", but nice try.
...that you can use any USB or Bluetooth (if your computer is equipped) mouse or input device on earth, for as little as $5, and they will instantly work for left/right/center/scroll without any additional drivers or configuration of any kind, or even any requirement that you have any kind of administrative privileges. Sounds like your employer sucks if they won't get you a mouse...(not to mention you could use that same three-button mouse with scroll wheel with WoW on a Mac, too, or any other application).
The rest of your message is a nice anti-Mac troll, though. D- for effort, F for creativity.
An article completely unrelated with Apple or anyone who works for Apple in any way writes its own justification for Apple shipping a one-button mouse standard, and this article gets flooded with comments essentially along the lines of "Apple sucks" because they ship a one-button mouse, even though you can use ANY USB or Bluetooth multi-button/scroll mouse/trackpad/trackball on earth, and they all function by default with no drivers for left/right/scroll (and center where applicable, e.g., X11), and Apple even sells NUMEROUS multi-button mice and speciality input devices right on the Apple online store and in all of its retail stores, and Apple just announced what will likely be their highest volume computer ever, which does NOT ship with a mouse, meaning you're free to choose any mouse you please, and the right button functionality will instantly work across the whole OS and all applications, which has supported this for years?
With the introduction of the Mac mini, Apple is implicitly getting AWAY from shipping a one-button mouse, since the computer comes with no mouse at all!
So, is there a problem because Apple doesn't make its own branded two button mouse? Maybe we should bash Dell for Logitech making its mice, then! Or is this simply just another opportunity to bash Apple? Frankly, the assertion that it forces developers to actually THINK about shit they're butting into contextual menus instead of just flooding them with crap is a perfectly reasonable one.
I don't recall being asked for my input. Who set up these bounds again? It wasn't society.
Wha? In this crazy society we live in (assuming you're in the US), we have something called representative democracy and another wacky concept known strangely s rule of law. As nutty as it sounds, the constituent elements that make up our society collectively decide on laws that govern our interaction with one another. Not everyone may agree with the fundamentals of every possible law, but we still collectively decide as a society to obey them, so we can actually live in some semblance of civility.In-sane!
There is a finite amount of wealth to go around.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite. If you want to talk about people who are worth "100 times" as much as someone else, you're not talking about that tired old "one percent" the liberals always trumpet about. You're talking about the top 0.1% or 0.01%, depending on who you're comparing to. Why are you concerned with the fabulously wealthy? On top of that, that isn't what this discussion is about at all. If you don't believe that you can (or even want to) better yourself, you'd probably be perfect in socialism: the endless struggle for the lowest common denominator!
Nice Robin Hood argument though: the classic "because they have more, it's ok to steal from them". Nice. It's good to see plainly where you're coming from, though. Thanks.
Let's take this argument out to absurdity. Which I feel is appropriate, since you already have.
Whether or not I have a copy of the painting or song does not affect the artist/singer unless I could afford to buy it, in which case I would have done so. It only affects me. So I don't think it's wrong of me to copy it.
How do you figure that it only affects you? Where is your incentive to better your financial situation and make more money, so you can afford the things you want - which you claim you would buy if you had the money? Inherent in that is educating yourself, making yourself a better and more productive member of society, a semblance of ambition, and incentive to do more. If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything? And then, the logical follow-on question is: where is ANYONE'S incentive to do anything?
Luckily, there are still honest people in the world. That's apparently the difference: some people feel obligated to pay for the work and effort of others within the bounds of the laws that society has collectively set up; others feel that it's okay to take from others with no compensation, and manufacture arguments designed to rationalize it, rather than thinking, "Hm, wouldn't it be nice to {improve my lot in life | work more hours | work toward a better job | make myself more desirable in the marketplace | etc.} so that I can reward myself with the things I want?"
You're depriving the painter of the possibility of his work (or even duplicates of it) having been purchased by taking it upon yourself to create/obtain duplicates that the creator has not been paid for, either for yourself, or others.
You're stealing from him, plain and simple. "Legally" stealing? Perhaps not. But that's a semantic debate. Saying it's "copyright infringement" and not "stealing" makes you feel like you're not the two-bit thief that you clearly are. And anyone who makes that argument is clearly feeling guilty.
Of course, you've got some tired rationalization for that, as well, I'm sure.
According to Merriam-Webster, marriage is the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.
So, uh, are you saying that the definition of "property" can't change for changing times?
Stop with the fucking bullshit "copyright infringement is not theft" line. If it makes your pea-brain feel better to keep repeating that, fine. But you're stealing, plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding the "false negatives" bit in the summary:
The story is that an individual made an FOIA request to the FBI for some specific information.
The FBI claimed that no such information was available.
The claimant found out in the meantime that such information WAS available and had been previously provided by the FBI as the result of another FOIA request, and, as such, requested a court order the FBI to provide it again.
The FBI is arguing that its search was reasonable within department regulations and guidelines, and that it cannot and should not be expected to always undercover every single possible document in response to every request. And documents being indexed electronically doesn't make it as easy as one might think: it's precisely because documents are indexed electronically that is creating the difficulty: the FBI is claiming, essentially, that it can't predict every possibly keyword it should associate with a document for search purposes, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable if it misses documents during a good-faith search.
Whether or not the FBI was intentionally hiding OKBOMB memos, etc., is another story altogether.
Additionally, the article summary is awfully pessimistic: we don't yet know how DOJ will respond to this request. Perhaps it itself hasn't determined whether or not it considers "URLs" to be subject to pen-trap regulations. Additionally, for those who didn't RTFA:
At issue is PATRIOT Section 216, which expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations using pen registers or trap and trace devices ( "pen-traps" ). Pen-traps collect information about the numbers dialed on a telephone but do not record the actual content of phone conversations. Because of this limitation, court orders authorizing pen-trap surveillance are easy to get -- instead of having to show probable cause, the government need only certify relevance to its investigation. Also, the government never has to inform people that they are or were the subjects of pen-trap surveillance.
Remember, pen-traps were already allowed before PATRIOT. At issue is what exactly PATRIOT's expansion to these provisions further allows. It clearly has been determined to allow email addresses and IP addresses. However, whose IP addresses? The suspect, or a host the suspect is visiting? It would seem clear to me that, virtual hosting aside, if the a target host's IP may be logged, and since DNS names, embodied here as "URLs" and IP are very obviously interrelated, again, virtual hosts aside, it seems this argument is somewhat of a smokescreen to force debate on whether or not pen-traps in general should be allowed.
And since they were allowed before PATRIOT, the answer seems clear: if PATRIOT's expansions to the existing statues to accommodate new communications technologies were appropriate, all that's left is determining what exactly is included. And if "IP addresses" are included, which would logically include target hosts, it would seem that DNS names used to arrive at said IP addresses are intrinsic to the nature of their usage. So disagree with pen-traps if you want, but don't rant and rave about PATRIOT, because it's not about that (though many would desperately want you to think so).
So apparently it's ok to take others' work that doesn't belong to you, and, perhaps because you've put a little work into it yourself, and don't fundamentally agree with regional releases, it can be rationalized that it must be "ok" to use and release it for free! And then when a content owner does come along and actually take notice (because if they didn't notice before, certainly that means it was tacitly approved of, even though you didn't ask permission, because certainly *everyone* must be aware of your phenomenal work!), you'll come up with further reasonings why you don't have to respond to the letter or spirit of their request!
I understand perfectly now, thanks!
Congratulations; you put up one hell of a fight against that straw man.
Heh, tha....
Oh. You're serious.
I may not have been responding directly to anyone in particular with my post, but, I assure you, the argument is quite real.
is concealing from them the WMD's we all know were found in Iraq after all?
I know (or at least hope) you're just kidding around here, but, if you're not: Wha??
No sane person, or, indeed anyone I've ever heard talk on this topic, has ever said that we "really found" WMD in Iraq (aside from the fact that we did indeed find trace amounts of WMD in Iraq several times [and I am NOT saying that is a justification], and hundreds of tons of WMD and WMD constituents are, to this day, unaccounted for.
It has not occurred to you that people think this team lies because we were told repeatedly (and simultaneously denied that we were told) that this administration knew he had 'em, knew where they were (and had 8x10 color glossies with circles and arrows) and knew he had em pointed at us? Not suspected, knew.
Hmm. As I've said countless times in the past (though not to you), this war as NOT ABOUT WMD. WMD was tangential, at best. Yes, it was used as the primary justification because 1.) It was a simple one, and 2.) The myriad other vastly more important reasons we went into Iraq (i.e., part of an omnibus, comprehensive effort to begin affecting change in the mideast was as limited of resources as possible) would be too difficult to wrap up into 10 second soundbites. But, if you listen to the speeches and read the publications of the likes of Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, it's crystal clear what our policy is.
And, on top of that, Iraq did have WMD. Hundreds of tons of it. It was still known to be in possession of said WMD in 1998, when the UN pulled the weapons inspectors for lack of effectiveness after Saddam continually accused them of being US spies. Iraq NEVER fully cooperated with the weapons inspectors, was in egregious violation of binding UNSEC resolutions multiple times, and believed itself (in the person of Saddam) to be massively investing in WMD, including nuclear, programs. Not to mention that this thought was echoed by the intelligence community of Germany, France, Russia, the UK, ourselves, and the intelligence capabilities of the UN proper. Now, as to whether the threat was *imminent* or *actionable* was a subject of fierce debate. And, as inspectors hadn't been in Iraq for 5 years, we frankly had no idea what the fuck was going on, and neither did they. To paraphrase Rice: are we to believe that after 1998, once inspectors left, and when Saddam had never fully cooperated before, AND Iraq was known to be in possession of WMD *at that time*, that Iraq suddenly had a change of heart, and with no supervision or verification, simply destroyed the remaining hundreds of tons of WMD, all without any proof, paperwork, or even reasonable mechanisms to do so? THAT is a fucking laugh, right there, my friend. This, of course, says nothing about the 650,000 tons (yes, that is the correct number) of intact UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces. And we didn't "admit" that there are no WMDs in Iraq, as some blogs claimed. We simply said it's not worth expending any more resources looking. Many probably found their way to places like the Sudan and Syria. Who knows.
Or because we were told in every imaginable way that Saddam et al were involved in the attacks of September 11, and that that date never failed to appear in the diatribe justifying the invasion?
You, sir, are a blithering dumbass. NO ONE in ANY media, nor anyone in the administration EVER said that Iraq and/or Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11, ever. ALL major media outlets referred repeatedly, ad nauseum, to the fact that bin Laden was the architect of 9/11, that bin Laden was Saudi, and that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Additionally, the information your assertion is based on is
Hello. Thank you for replying with a reasonable post.
You say want an honest debate, and yet you go out of your way to insult, belittle and demean those you wish to engage in debate. Fair enough.
I have not gone out of my way. This is routine. I live in Madison, WI, where the person who murdered an Army mathematics researcher by bombing a University building during the Vietnam war now runs a popular deli downtown next to the campus. You know, just so you know where I'm coming from.
Now, let's be honest. Which of the following two scenarios strikes you as most plausible?
Actually, it's closer to 2.) than anything, if those are my only options.
However, this brings up some of the hypocrisy: if we had trouble finding the WMD (for example, it is KNOWN that 720 *tons* of Sarin alone is unaccounted for), it was because we didn't have enough manpower. But we're supposed to be pulling troops out? So which is it, fundamentally? More, or less?
On Abu Ghraib: so you're saying that because, in your opinion, we probably commited thousands of acts of sodomy, rape, beating, near-drowning and 'accidental' homocide on prisoners of war back in World War II that it really isn't a big deal for us to continue to sodomize, rape, beat, near-drown and 'accidentally' kill prisoners of war today. Is this correct?
Yes. However: I don't defend it. I don't condone it. But I realize that is the nature of a wartime situation. I concede that the conditions that lead to such acts are a large set of variables, which can certainly be minimized. I'll concede things like having inexperienced reserve or guard soldiers, or a reserve officer whose normal job is selling window coverings as a commander of a military prison can contribute to these conditions. However, I have a capability to see the big picture. You're damned right I can overlook - not excuse, but, on balance, overlook - Abu Ghraib when the beginning of the big picture is what happened on 30 January.
60%! Fuck! We don't even get that in the US! These people are ready for modernization, freedom, and religious pluralism.
If continuing sanctions were the only alternative to going in, what of the estimated 50,000/year Iraqis - over 600,000 - dead during said sanctions, supposedly as a direct result of the sanctions process, according to organizations like Amnesty International? That situation showed no signs of ending. So, our action will actually directly result, over a slightly longer term, in the clear net preservation of Iraqi life. It astounds me that people can't accept some collateral or short term consequences for a much larger positive payoff. It further astounds me that some people can't even see that payoff.
Perhaps there are some who would say there should never have been sanctions and we should never have gotten involved with Iraq the first time around. To those people I would ask: are you against everything that has built our civilization, in no small part the petroleum economy? Try not to think about fat rednecks or soccer moms driving Suburbans and Excursions for a second. Think about plastics, and medical equipment, and food processing, water treatment, fertilizers, energy for manufacturing, and the happiness and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. Try to also ask yourself if we're content with letting millions of people live in backwards, repressive regimes. Peace in the mideast is a real prospect! Bush is the first president to ever suggest an autonomous Palestine. The administration is a group of a few people who again understand the importance of the spread of democracy around the world, not ONLY for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others! This is really the dream! All some can think of is things like "Halliburton" and "$9B unaccounted for by Coalition Provisional Authority". Sure, those are a part of it. But not all of it! And frankly, not even most of it. Or, more accurately, really any of it.
Back to the point, it more likely is close to:
...this sits at -1, because it's the truth.
No one wants to have an honest debate about any of these topics.
How can we have any type of debate - much less an honest one - about foreign policy when these liberal pseudo-intellectual blog-readers think, quite literally, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, or anyone remotely conservative/Republican, or, God forbid, *neoconservative*, are the worst kind of evil incarnate, whose only wish is to continue lining their pockets at the expense of US troops, and especially the "brownskins"? That there are no other considerations at all, that Panislamic radicalism isn't real (and if it is, it's exclusively the fault of the US and no one else), that "conservative" automatically equals "ultra right wing fundamentalist Bible thumper", and only liberal/progressive people know what's best, and everyone else, ESPECIALLY people who voted for Bush, are either complete and utterly moronic victims of neocon propaganda, OR the greedy fat cats who want more riches at the expense of the rest of the world?
Fuck, these people talk about *Bush* having a "black and white" view? Damn. I've said it before: these are the most closed-minded "open-minded" people on earth.
And it's precisely because of this fucking rampant nonsensical yammering on the internet that people don't know left from right or up from down and read everything that reinforces this idea they've internalized for whatever reason that anything having to do with corporations, business, or conservative policy is EVIL, and only liberal/progressive/quasi-socialist ideas are good; that military action is never proper (unless instantiated by a liberal), and ESPECIALLY any preemptive action; that there is only one side to the story: theirs, and they can throw to the wind the concept that 25 million people are FREE, and that this freedom is not "imposed", and indeed cannot be, because freedom is the default state; that it is acceptable for the United States to fight for its own interests and those of its allies, and that there are very real threats that have been growing in this region for the last two decades that Europe chooses to ignore (or, possibly let the US handle so they can simultaneously have their problems solved while also not looking like the bad guy, and having a responsible party like the US to blame for any problems, to boot); and I could go on.
If people have any question WHY we are in Iraq, they should read this recent post, as I believe it is my least long-winded writing on the topic.
These leftist bloggers that have so captivated this loony left want all the rights and privileges of "journalism" - indeed, many paint themselves as the only TRUE journalists, while all the "corporate" media is simply the collective mouthpiece of the Bush administration - but want none of the responsibility. To this argument, they may hide in the refuge of "Oh, but we never said we were journalists! It's just our opinion! We have no obligation to do or say anything!" but they know damned well they're influencing people with their incendiary, extremely one-sided rhetoric, that ignores the fortunes of millions of people, including our own.
We would never have the collective national will for a World War II-scale military campaign again. If today's technology existed then, there would have been hundreds of "Abu Ghraibs", and I shudder to think of what kind of despotic totalitarian world we live in had we not the will to fight for what is right, not only for ourselves, but for all people: and that is freedom. Liberals, especially slashdot readers, will no doubt laugh endlessly at this, thinking about their last lame list of failed US military actions, or travesties they believe were prosecuted by the US in the name of profits, or some other liberal vomit du jour. Or perhaps they'll choke on the hypocrisy of things like simultaneously blasting the Bush administration for sending troops to Iraq - then saying we don't have ENOUGH tr
Wouldn't you also get the increased video size if you got the 15-in model with the upgraded video card?
Yep, optional on the 15".
- Optical digital 5.1 audio in/out on the 17"
- Dual link DVI on the 17" (for 2560x1600 30" display support)
- A new era: 512MB RAM stock on all models
...that (as of this posting) 28 of the 42 comments - 66% - to the blog post referenced in the summary are people spamming their "free Mac mini" referral links, some totally brazenly?
Since these schemes are classically mathematically pyramidal by nature, how long before this bullshit overtakes blogs and forums just as the "MAKE MONEY FAST" shit on USENET did?
Nobody said you personally were advocating stealing content.
(If this is the same AC)
Then why make that implication in the post? The "whining" bit and all? If it wasn't directly in response to my post, then what was it? Specifically explain the purpose of that statement if not to somehow insinuate I was "whining" about content providers trying to protect their content (which I wasn't), ostensibly to prevent it from being stolen.
(However, guilty conscience?)
No, anonymous dipshit, because not only do I not advocate stealing such content, I don't do it. But again, nice try trying to cleverly tie me and my argument to content theft, or imply that I must do it, if I'm arguing for the content providers to simply respond to the prevailing marketplace.
1. I'm not advocating stealing the content, copyright infringement, or anything along those lines, so your entire post and the locking doors analogy is invalid.
2. Well, why *don't* they move into a new medium? Or are you saying they should have just stuck with OTA delivery, instead of cable and satellite? Or maybe VHS? Or perhaps film? Or maybe hand-drawn flipbooks? The internet and various media formats are just another delivery mechanism which they should be JUMPING at, AND making a lot of money doing, to boot! This isn't about anyone stealing, this is about content providers responding to the marketplace.
Not surprisingly, the repercussions - particularly the rapidly growing number of shows available for the plucking online - terrify industry executives, who remember only too well what Napster and other file-sharing programs did to the music industry. They fret that if unchecked, rampant trading of files will threaten the riches of the relatively new and surprisingly lucrative television DVD business. It could endanger sales of television shows to international markets and into syndication.
Then why don't they fucking sell their shit online in a convenient, reliable format? Or don't they want to learn from the music industry, instead ignoring the solutions and only imagining the problems?
And it could further endanger what for the past 50 years has been television's economic linchpin: the 30-second commercial.
That *particular* business model is dying, and legislation should not protect it, just as "horseless carriages" shouldn't be required to carry horse whips to keep horse whip manufacturers in business. Note I didn't say *advertizing* or commercialism is dying, because it isn't. Merchants have managed to get information about their products to people, and subsequently have them purchased, over the years and through changing technology. Tomorrow will be no different. It's just that the volume of revenue from "forced" advertising, supporting $1M/show paychecks for actors, might not still be there.
And what a tragedy that would be...
...SideTrack:
SideTrack is a replacement driver for the Apple PowerBook and iBook trackpads. With SideTrack installed your standard trackpad becomes a powerful multi-button scrolling mouse.
Leave your external mouse at home and take full control over your trackpad:
- Vertical scrolling at left or right edge of pad.
- Horizontal scrolling at top or bottom edge of pad.
- Map hardware button to left or right click.
- Map trackpad taps to no action, left click, left click drag (with or without drag lock), or right click.
- Map trackpad corner taps to mouse buttons 1-6 or simulated keystrokes.
- Extensive control over accidental input filtering.
SideTrack is multiuser aware and fully compatible with MacOS X 10.3 fast user switching (FUS). Every user on your PowerBook can have different settings depending on their needs.
...I definitely agree with you on.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple moves silently away from the one-button paradigm, as they have been for years. Remember: this article isn't *Apple* justifying a one-button mouse; it's some random person doing it. So don't interpret this as Apple or anyone related to it "digging in" about a one-button mouse.
Funny how well-written Mac applications, and indeed most Mac applications, all do take sensible, full advantage of contextual menus. Of course, it shouldn't be arbitrarily polluted with crap, or used extensively inappropriately.
Additionally, it seems that you seem to have missed that about 72% of eligible Iraqi voters turned out, some literally in tears at the prospect of voting, and only 40 people were killed the entire election day by a determined insurgency in a country of over 25 million people. Additionally, Zogby polling within Iraq at polling places showed that over 58% of Iraqis believe there should be religious pluralism and freedom, with less than 30% favoring some form of Islamic council, and a significantly smaller percentage (~1%) favoring a Taliban style Islamic theocracy. But, I'm sure it makes you feel better to gloss over all of this, and think that Bush & Co. are on some evil mission to dominate the entire globe and turn the US into a police state, while spreading propaganda to keep Americans in fear to allow them to continue warmongering to line their pockets, instead of actually considering the truth that even Kerry understood about the threat of Panislamic radicalism in the mideast, and the fact that the US's economy, as well as that of our allies in Europe, is heavily intertwined with the stability of the petroleum economy. And before you say "UM, DUDE, IRAQ WASN'T A HOTBED FOR TERROR, IT WAS ALL LIES", read the fucking link
Nice way to work in *Iraq* in a fucking article about single-button mice, though...
Look at Photoshop for a really good example of this as the right-button still doesn't do anything particularly useful in the Windows version, which is a side effect of the Mac heritage.
How is this Apple's fault, when the OS has natively supported two button mice for the better part of a decade? How many major Photoshop releases have there been in this time? This would almost be akin to Photoshop still being a 16-bit application, because Windows was once 16-bit in the past, but then blaming it on Microsoft's "heritage".
Again, how is this Apple's fault, in recent times, i.e., the last 7 or so years? Additionally, your Photoshop argument falls down because 1.) control-click has worked for right-click functionality for years, meaning that Adobe could have added full contextual menu capability at any time, and still have expected customers to get full functionality without expecting or requiring them to have a multi-button mouse, and 2.) hundreds of other applications, including Mac OS itself, take sensible, full advantage of a second mouse button or scroll wheel, and have for years. Think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Answer: it's not Apple's fault. Also, Maya is not used by any statistically significant portion of the Mac's userbase, so that's a really poor example. The design is simple: excluding fringe examples like Maya, applications should full work with a one-button mouse. But, if you would like, you can add a two-button mouse, or a scroll wheel mouse or three-button mouse, and instantly take advantage of added functionality with no drivers, configuration, or modification of any kind.
I don't think it's me who's trolling here, "buddy", but nice try.
...that you can use any USB or Bluetooth (if your computer is equipped) mouse or input device on earth, for as little as $5, and they will instantly work for left/right/center/scroll without any additional drivers or configuration of any kind, or even any requirement that you have any kind of administrative privileges. Sounds like your employer sucks if they won't get you a mouse...(not to mention you could use that same three-button mouse with scroll wheel with WoW on a Mac, too, or any other application).
The rest of your message is a nice anti-Mac troll, though. D- for effort, F for creativity.
An article completely unrelated with Apple or anyone who works for Apple in any way writes its own justification for Apple shipping a one-button mouse standard, and this article gets flooded with comments essentially along the lines of "Apple sucks" because they ship a one-button mouse, even though you can use ANY USB or Bluetooth multi-button/scroll mouse/trackpad/trackball on earth, and they all function by default with no drivers for left/right/scroll (and center where applicable, e.g., X11), and Apple even sells NUMEROUS multi-button mice and speciality input devices right on the Apple online store and in all of its retail stores, and Apple just announced what will likely be their highest volume computer ever, which does NOT ship with a mouse, meaning you're free to choose any mouse you please, and the right button functionality will instantly work across the whole OS and all applications, which has supported this for years?
With the introduction of the Mac mini, Apple is implicitly getting AWAY from shipping a one-button mouse, since the computer comes with no mouse at all!
So, is there a problem because Apple doesn't make its own branded two button mouse? Maybe we should bash Dell for Logitech making its mice, then! Or is this simply just another opportunity to bash Apple? Frankly, the assertion that it forces developers to actually THINK about shit they're butting into contextual menus instead of just flooding them with crap is a perfectly reasonable one.
And the NY Times story from yesterday's slashdot story on this same crack by the same team.
I don't recall being asked for my input. Who set up these bounds again? It wasn't society.
Wha? In this crazy society we live in (assuming you're in the US), we have something called representative democracy and another wacky concept known strangely s rule of law. As nutty as it sounds, the constituent elements that make up our society collectively decide on laws that govern our interaction with one another. Not everyone may agree with the fundamentals of every possible law, but we still collectively decide as a society to obey them, so we can actually live in some semblance of civility.In-sane!
There is a finite amount of wealth to go around.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite. If you want to talk about people who are worth "100 times" as much as someone else, you're not talking about that tired old "one percent" the liberals always trumpet about. You're talking about the top 0.1% or 0.01%, depending on who you're comparing to. Why are you concerned with the fabulously wealthy? On top of that, that isn't what this discussion is about at all. If you don't believe that you can (or even want to) better yourself, you'd probably be perfect in socialism: the endless struggle for the lowest common denominator!
Nice Robin Hood argument though: the classic "because they have more, it's ok to steal from them". Nice. It's good to see plainly where you're coming from, though. Thanks.
Let's take this argument out to absurdity. Which I feel is appropriate, since you already have.
Whether or not I have a copy of the painting or song does not affect the artist/singer unless I could afford to buy it, in which case I would have done so. It only affects me. So I don't think it's wrong of me to copy it.
How do you figure that it only affects you? Where is your incentive to better your financial situation and make more money, so you can afford the things you want - which you claim you would buy if you had the money? Inherent in that is educating yourself, making yourself a better and more productive member of society, a semblance of ambition, and incentive to do more. If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything? And then, the logical follow-on question is: where is ANYONE'S incentive to do anything?
Luckily, there are still honest people in the world. That's apparently the difference: some people feel obligated to pay for the work and effort of others within the bounds of the laws that society has collectively set up; others feel that it's okay to take from others with no compensation, and manufacture arguments designed to rationalize it, rather than thinking, "Hm, wouldn't it be nice to {improve my lot in life | work more hours | work toward a better job | make myself more desirable in the marketplace | etc.} so that I can reward myself with the things I want?"
You're depriving the painter of the possibility of his work (or even duplicates of it) having been purchased by taking it upon yourself to create/obtain duplicates that the creator has not been paid for, either for yourself, or others.
You're stealing from him, plain and simple. "Legally" stealing? Perhaps not. But that's a semantic debate. Saying it's "copyright infringement" and not "stealing" makes you feel like you're not the two-bit thief that you clearly are. And anyone who makes that argument is clearly feeling guilty.
Of course, you've got some tired rationalization for that, as well, I'm sure.
...what's keeping you from having multiple hard drive copies, again?
According to Merriam-Webster, marriage is the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.
So, uh, are you saying that the definition of "property" can't change for changing times?
Stop with the fucking bullshit "copyright infringement is not theft" line. If it makes your pea-brain feel better to keep repeating that, fine. But you're stealing, plain and simple.
QuickTime Player can play MPEG-4 content with no licensing burden (because Apple has already paid the cap to MPEG LA).
The University of Wisconsin.
Perhaps if you'd clicked on the URL attached to every one of my posts, you'd have deduced that.