Sure bmo, like most Republicans supported Romney Care. Romney's probably taken himself out of contention as a future Republican nominee because of Romney Care. Are you claiming the Tea Parties supported Romney Care or Obamacare? Was this post from you even for real, or was it a joke?
And you aren't part of the public, Mr. Chomskyite? What exactly have you been doing to organize against ACTA? I'm trying trying to spread the word to everyone who will listen, and I'm preparing to organize. What's your contribution?
With ACTA looming and governments already planning how to implement it, it seems that unless something else completely disruptive occurs there will be a battle over two competing rights models: individual rights versus copyrights (and other intellectual property rights). I respect intellectual property - to an extent. I believe in copyrights that help spur creativity in arts and sciences, but the original plan for copyrights as endorsed by the US Constitution was for them to grant limited time monopolies to creators. That model has been rejected because of the special interest corruption from multi-national corporations, and now the media cartels are working to make the federal government their handmaiden and servant on the Internet.
If you haven't read it yet, the current draft of ACTA calls for action against copyright offenders at the inchoate stage, before the infringement has even been committed. It calls for the creation of an "impending infringer" task-force with a broad mandate to prevent copyright infringement that hasn't even taken place yet. Media reports are claiming that under ACTA it may become illegal to search for the keywords "Metallica album download," even if no infringing material is downloaded. If true, it would destroy the Internet as we know it, and we also know that once government gets its "nose under the tent" that will be just the beginning of its regulatory and enforcement regime.
So, as I said before, while I have limited respect for intellectual property and believe it is morally wrong to enjoy another's work by copying it without approval, I believe in individual rights over copyrights. And moreover, I believe in maintaining a relatively free Internet with a certain level of copyright infringement going on if the alternative is clamping down on freedom online in a draconian way to discourage infringement. As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.
and always warmed it up before screeching off down the street?
Modern ICE-based cars with electronic fuel injection don't require much warm up time. Unnecessary idling of a cold engine does not improve performance; instead it wastes gas, releases more hydrocarbons and may even do harm to the catalytic converter if practiced over long term. See Ask Our Experts: Car Engine Warm-Up
Yeah, the study sounds almost as flawed as the summary of it. Trusting Google more than traditional media is almost completely a non-sequitur. Google isn't of itself a source of news. There's Google News that aggregates articles from news sites, but Google doesn't have its own news bureau. The comparison between Google and "traditional media" implies that people were ranking Google as a news provider against traditional news sources, where in actuality that wasn't the comparison at all.
The fact is, as others have often pointed out, digital information wants to be free. You can turn the whole world into criminals trying to fight that simple truth, but it's only going to create a virtual international police state. I don't want that, and I don't think you want that, either. If copyright infringement is that damaging to your bottom line, I think you have to figure out other ways to monetize your product.
There's only one analogous example to the grip of the media cartels that I can think of. Government and other organized labor employees are destroying the industrialized world with their lavish pensions and other benefits. They work 30 or 40 years and then demand and get guaranteed pensions for the rest of their lives, even while the countries they're sucking dry are going into national bankruptcy. Politicians naturally assume they'll just raise taxes ever higher in order to pay off these corrupt deals. May people know about the serious financial problems posed to the US by the public entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But nearly no one discusses the fact that Government Employee Entitlement costs are almost as large as the public Entitlements.
Similarly, with copyright protected media, the creator produces something once and then expects to receive guaranteed income from it forever. But in this case it's not even the original creator who gets most of the recurring revenue - it's the media cartel that distributes his or her product. Despite the fact that the march of technology has changed the way we interact with distributed media, some still expect to get rewarded financially in the same fashion that they were rewarded prior to the consumer Internet age.
Now here's the thing, I have a limited amount of respect for copyrights. I think granting a limited-time narrow monopoly to the creator of a given product is a desirable trade-off to support the creation of works of art and science. But the key word is limited. The Constitution calls for limited-time copyrights, but as time has gone on copyrights have gone from limited to unlimited, and now the media cartels want to turn the Internet into a virtual police state to enforce their permanent monopolies. If enforcement provisions like the ones envisioned go into effect, we're on a very slippery slope to the death of the Internet as we know it. If a person can be prosecuted for a random search term that may draw the wrath of the media cartels, then that means it's no longer safe to surf various sites and click links to different pages indiscriminately. Remember, we're talking about merely searching for terms that the media cartels think may lead to an infringing download, not the infringing download itself. What this is referred to as in the law is an "inchoate offense" - a violation of the law the precedes the actual illegal act, and it's a very controversial subject because of the far-reaching implications involved. When the media cartels get that kind of power over our online lives, it means they've taken things way, way, too far. And make no mistake - this will be a slippery slope. If government can snoop on search engine keywords to help the media cartels, what's next? Logically keyword searches about anything that could arouse even minor suspicion could put a user in danger. What this announcement looks like to me is a "War on Digital Piracy," and just like the "War on Drugs" it will certainly ensnare many innocent people, erode liberties and be of dubious value - if not harmful in all respects.
I got to the conversation late (and was disgusted by that moronic early troll post that got +5ed), but first of all Jobs already confirmed in one his terse personal email replies that the Mac is not being phased out or replaced by the iOS. Yes, it's troubling that nearly all the focus at this year's WWDC was on the iPlatforms and that there weren't even any design awards given to Mac developers. But Apple has heard that people were disappointed by that, so I expect to see a different setup in the future that is more respectful of the Mac platform.
Some of the lower end Mac models like the MacBook may get replaced by iPad-like successors in the future, but Apple would be quite dumb indeed to kill the Mac. A touch sensitive AIO desktop like the iMac but running iOS will probably debut some time in the near future - it's only a natural progression of the concept. But to go from assuming that to thinking the entire Mac line will be replaced is alarmist or stupid or both. Mac OS X can't be hybridized with iOS to create a limited computing environment because the vast majority of Mac users would balk at that prospect and switch to Windows immediately. You can't take the Mac and Mac OS X - a general computing platform - and morph it into a limited computing platform like the iOS iPlatform devices are and not expect much of the user base to revolt. Apple has pissed on loyal Mac customers a number of times, but a stunt like that would break the camel's back. Apple isn't that dumb (even though it acts like it sometimes) - the company knows that Windows 7 is a very respectable release and that people who demand regular PCs aren't going to accepted an iPlatform replacement instead.
Everyone needs Get a Grip. Btw, the post below me asks where Mac applications will be developed if Mac OS X and the iOS were to merge. If such an unlikely scenario were to occur, apps would be developed on that new platform. The better observation to make is, if Apple ports its iOS development tools to Windows then and only then could we say with certainty that the Mac would be on the way out. Right now the iOS is dependent on Mac OS X development. If that changes in the future all bets are off.
I got to the conversation late (and was disgusted by that moronic early troll post that got +5ed), but first of all Jobs already confirmed in one his terse personal email replies that the Mac is not being phased out or replaced by the iOS. Yes, it's troubling that nearly all the focus at this year's WWDC was on the iPlatforms and that there weren't even any design awards given to Mac developers. But Apple has heard that people were disappointed by that, so I expect to see a different setup in the future that is more respectful of the Mac platform.
Some of the lower end Mac models like the MacBook may get replaced by iPad-like successors in the future, but Apple would be quite dumb indeed to kill the Mac. A touch sensitive AIO desktop like the iMac but running iOS will probably debut some time in the near future - it's only a natural progression of the concept. But to go from assuming that to thinking the entire Mac line will be replaced is alarmist or stupid or both. Mac OS X can't be hybridized with iOS to create a limited computing environment because the vast majority of Mac users would balk at that prospect and switch to Windows immediately. You can't take a general computing platform and morph into a limited computing platform without much of that platform's user base revolting. Apple isn't dumb (even though it acts like it sometimes) - the company knows that Windows 7 is a very respectable release and that people who demand regular PCs aren't going to accept an iPlatform replacement instead.
Everyone needs Get a Grip. Btw, the post below me asks where Mac applications will be developed if Mac OS X and the iOS were to merge. If such an unlikely scenario were to occur, apps would be developed on that new platform. The better observation to make is, if Apple ports its iOS development tools to Windows then and only then could we say with certainty that the Mac would be on the way out. Right now the iOS is dependent on Mac OS X development. If that changes in the future all bets are off.
Christianity has left such a terrible taste in your mouth that you're soured to all religion. If my outlook on religion were based primary on Christianity (a frightening thought), I'd feel the same way. But don't be so quick to declare with certainty that there is nothing divine in the universe. The Christian man-god is a falsehood, but there is a G-d.
Based on what I've read and heard about this legal precedent, I'm having a difficult time understanding how it's at all constitutional. Let me get this straight - because Hispanics are supposedly underrepresented as a portion of the voting population, the Hispanics who voted in this court controlled election are getting 6 votes to the single vote that non-Hispanics get? They say this is supposed to provide equal protection to the Hispanic minority, but I don't see how granting extra votes to Hispanics doesn't adversely impact the equal protection guaranteed to every other citizen.
We're friends but I have to disagree with you Surt. Kibbutzim are no paradises either. They were never really that popular, never all that large as a percentage of the population, and they had to turn to capitalistic mechanisms to survive. They were also discredited in the eyes of many Israelis when the truth about Stalinist Russia hit the news there. Communism on the small scale can have some success, but it can't support large populations or whole countries, let alone the world as a whole. Look at how successful communist Vietnam was after the war - large portions of the population starved because their totalitarian economy couldn't produce rice.
Dumb ass indeed. You seriously believe that Socialist Western Europe is better off than the United States? Have you heard of European states like Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain that are in sovereign debt crisis and failing because of their Socialist welfare states? Have you seen the value of the Euro lately? It's not done declining, by the way. Have you heard of Great Britain's sovereign debt crisis? Give me a break.
And yes, before you say it, I know that the United States has a huge looming sovereign debt crisis of its own, but that's due to the US attempting to emulate Europe. It's due to enormous governments at the federal and state levels, due to the Socialist Entitlements regime put in by two of the worst presidents in American history, FDR and LBJ, may they rot. The financial fraud perpetrated on the American public by Socialist Insecurity and Medicrap make Bernie Madoff look like a minor leaguer, yet all your beloved Democrats and Socialists want to do is to grow the unsustainable Socialist state even further. And you heard about our banking crisis in that hovel you reside in, right? In large part it was due to progressive pressure politics, the CRA and crooked Congressmen like Butt Pirate Barney Frank, who was literally in bed with the Socialist lending institutions Freddie and Fannie, declaring them to be financially sound right before the crisis hit.
Dude, I hope you're a troll because if you truly believe what you wrote, you've got to be one of the most pathetically moronic, deluded saps around. Seriously, look into a brain transplant.
In a civil case the burden of proof is usually having a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning it depends on which side presents a stronger case.
I too think it's wrong to be able to sue someone based on claims about IP addresses. Given that at least for IPv4 addresses are often dynamically assigned, isn't it possible that an unlucky person who got reassigned a heavy sharer's IP could get caught up in a sharing lawsuit without having committed the supposed offense? And besides, an IP address doesn't indicate who the specific individual was using the computer at that given time to download the offending content. It could have been Jack, his three sons, his daughter or some neighbor he generously lets use his WIFI.
Somewhat correct. Yes, Jews do hyphenate even the English equivalent of divine titles to avoid any potential desecration of the divine in written form. Yes, it is based on the commandment regarding not taking the divine name in vain. When not in prayer Jews don't pronounce Hebrew divine names in their normal form, either, using instead a permutation of them. However, hyphenation and permutations of the divine name are practices related to but separate from concern for protecting the Tetragrammaton, which was only spoken once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and guarded zealously otherwise.
As for Muslims and their concern over pictures of Mohammed and others they regard as prophets, that has to do not with guarding divine names but instead with guarding against idolatry and graven images. That taboo in Islam is similar to but more stringent than the taboos found in Judaism over the same practice. Finally, the Witnesses do believe in pronouncing what they regard as a divine name, but they are unquestionably in error because the name they use was a mistranslation/misunderstanding of vowel pointings of the Tetragrammaton. Specifically, there are no vowels known for the Tetragrammaton, but in some copies of the Hebrew Scriptures vowels are inserted for the term Adonai to remind the reader to pronounce it instead of pronounce the consonants of the Tetragrammaton. Some translators and Christian groups misunderstood this point and incorrectly derived the name used by the Witnesses.
Glad someone brought this up already. Yes, diaspora primarily refers to the Jewish dispersal across the globe as a result of the Roman occupation and destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the land of Israel. Diaspora literally means dispersion, and while it can refer to dispersals of other groups of people, the primary denotation of the term refers to the exile of the Jewish people. If others want to contest that, check out the definitions on m-w.com.
Why the project creators used this term for distributed funding of software and other projects is somewhat beyond me. They want to use an unconventional term for dispersal, but diaspora has a unique meaning and isn't really a term with a positive connotation.
I'm glad more people are waking up the fact that easily guessed security challenge questions suck donkey balls. Most of us probably go along and give weak answers that could be guessed, worst of which is likely Mother's Maiden Name since it's almost as common a data point as one's Socialist Insecurity number. I wish more sites would implement Chase's persistent cookie check that has you authenticate with a randomly generated code that gets emailed to the account's email address on file if the cookie isn't present. Of course, that still leaves one vulnerable if the email account gets hacked, but it's better than redundant and weak security questions. I dread having to fill those out, and it's especially painful on sites that require a bunch of them.
Oh, and by the way, I love - absolutely LOVE - seeing Socialists argue about whether or not the corrupt health care takeover legislation counts as real "reform" or does not because it doesn't go far enough in completely Socializing medicine. Ah leftists, you continually amaze me. Kudos to your side on successfully infiltrating and actively undermining our country, by the way.
Government salaries in the United States now rival private sector salaries, and the benefits are far better. The way you described your understanding government jobs is the way it used to be in America, but it's not like that anymore. It's been an upward trend over the last 20 years, I believe. That's one of the reasons why the country is rapidly bankrupting itself.
Absolutely. No one who has any actual experience with OS X would claim Mac users have to sort out dependencies. Whoever wrote that is utterly clueless.
I'm pretty knowledgeable when it comes to new Internet tech, but I don't offhand know the benefits of DNSSEC or much about it other than it has to do with Doman Name Servers and Security (I assume encryption). Is it a complement to SSL? Does it help secure browsing sessions or is it more about identifying and authenticating legitimate domain names versus questionable ones? I guess I'll have to read up on it.
He isn't just talking about regime change. He's talking about the destruction of the state - that's clear. And besides, there are videos of Ahmadinejad leading chants of "Death to the Jews."
This radical regime has no compunction about killing its own citizens, and it has continuously described its intention to destroy another sovereign country. Regime change needs to happen now, or else the world will sleep through a future preventable calamity yet again.
This is a quotation with a disputed origin, but the wisdom it contains cannot be disputed:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."
That is absolutely true, tverbeek. SJ tried to make that argument and it was largely laughed off by developers who were awaiting local apps and APIs. If Apple had continued to make that argument and had never rolled out the App Store, the iPhone (and its software platform) would not be the success it is today.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure bmo, like most Republicans supported Romney Care. Romney's probably taken himself out of contention as a future Republican nominee because of Romney Care. Are you claiming the Tea Parties supported Romney Care or Obamacare? Was this post from you even for real, or was it a joke?
And you aren't part of the public, Mr. Chomskyite? What exactly have you been doing to organize against ACTA? I'm trying trying to spread the word to everyone who will listen, and I'm preparing to organize. What's your contribution?
With ACTA looming and governments already planning how to implement it, it seems that unless something else completely disruptive occurs there will be a battle over two competing rights models: individual rights versus copyrights (and other intellectual property rights). I respect intellectual property - to an extent. I believe in copyrights that help spur creativity in arts and sciences, but the original plan for copyrights as endorsed by the US Constitution was for them to grant limited time monopolies to creators. That model has been rejected because of the special interest corruption from multi-national corporations, and now the media cartels are working to make the federal government their handmaiden and servant on the Internet. If you haven't read it yet, the current draft of ACTA calls for action against copyright offenders at the inchoate stage, before the infringement has even been committed. It calls for the creation of an "impending infringer" task-force with a broad mandate to prevent copyright infringement that hasn't even taken place yet. Media reports are claiming that under ACTA it may become illegal to search for the keywords "Metallica album download," even if no infringing material is downloaded. If true, it would destroy the Internet as we know it, and we also know that once government gets its "nose under the tent" that will be just the beginning of its regulatory and enforcement regime. So, as I said before, while I have limited respect for intellectual property and believe it is morally wrong to enjoy another's work by copying it without approval, I believe in individual rights over copyrights. And moreover, I believe in maintaining a relatively free Internet with a certain level of copyright infringement going on if the alternative is clamping down on freedom online in a draconian way to discourage infringement. As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.
and always warmed it up before screeching off down the street?
Modern ICE-based cars with electronic fuel injection don't require much warm up time. Unnecessary idling of a cold engine does not improve performance; instead it wastes gas, releases more hydrocarbons and may even do harm to the catalytic converter if practiced over long term. See Ask Our Experts: Car Engine Warm-Up
Yeah, the study sounds almost as flawed as the summary of it. Trusting Google more than traditional media is almost completely a non-sequitur. Google isn't of itself a source of news. There's Google News that aggregates articles from news sites, but Google doesn't have its own news bureau. The comparison between Google and "traditional media" implies that people were ranking Google as a news provider against traditional news sources, where in actuality that wasn't the comparison at all.
This is a post I wrote for another forum on the subject of the Obama Administration's just released vision of intellectual property rights enforcement (as reported by DailyTech, which I assume to be a prelude or complement to ACTA:
The fact is, as others have often pointed out, digital information wants to be free. You can turn the whole world into criminals trying to fight that simple truth, but it's only going to create a virtual international police state. I don't want that, and I don't think you want that, either. If copyright infringement is that damaging to your bottom line, I think you have to figure out other ways to monetize your product.
There's only one analogous example to the grip of the media cartels that I can think of. Government and other organized labor employees are destroying the industrialized world with their lavish pensions and other benefits. They work 30 or 40 years and then demand and get guaranteed pensions for the rest of their lives, even while the countries they're sucking dry are going into national bankruptcy. Politicians naturally assume they'll just raise taxes ever higher in order to pay off these corrupt deals. May people know about the serious financial problems posed to the US by the public entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But nearly no one discusses the fact that Government Employee Entitlement costs are almost as large as the public Entitlements.
Similarly, with copyright protected media, the creator produces something once and then expects to receive guaranteed income from it forever. But in this case it's not even the original creator who gets most of the recurring revenue - it's the media cartel that distributes his or her product. Despite the fact that the march of technology has changed the way we interact with distributed media, some still expect to get rewarded financially in the same fashion that they were rewarded prior to the consumer Internet age.
Now here's the thing, I have a limited amount of respect for copyrights. I think granting a limited-time narrow monopoly to the creator of a given product is a desirable trade-off to support the creation of works of art and science. But the key word is limited. The Constitution calls for limited-time copyrights, but as time has gone on copyrights have gone from limited to unlimited, and now the media cartels want to turn the Internet into a virtual police state to enforce their permanent monopolies. If enforcement provisions like the ones envisioned go into effect, we're on a very slippery slope to the death of the Internet as we know it. If a person can be prosecuted for a random search term that may draw the wrath of the media cartels, then that means it's no longer safe to surf various sites and click links to different pages indiscriminately. Remember, we're talking about merely searching for terms that the media cartels think may lead to an infringing download, not the infringing download itself. What this is referred to as in the law is an "inchoate offense" - a violation of the law the precedes the actual illegal act, and it's a very controversial subject because of the far-reaching implications involved. When the media cartels get that kind of power over our online lives, it means they've taken things way, way, too far. And make no mistake - this will be a slippery slope. If government can snoop on search engine keywords to help the media cartels, what's next? Logically keyword searches about anything that could arouse even minor suspicion could put a user in danger. What this announcement looks like to me is a "War on Digital Piracy," and just like the "War on Drugs" it will certainly ensnare many innocent people, erode liberties and be of dubious value - if not harmful in all respects.
Is this a Socialist move? Yes, I believe
I got to the conversation late (and was disgusted by that moronic early troll post that got +5ed), but first of all Jobs already confirmed in one his terse personal email replies that the Mac is not being phased out or replaced by the iOS. Yes, it's troubling that nearly all the focus at this year's WWDC was on the iPlatforms and that there weren't even any design awards given to Mac developers. But Apple has heard that people were disappointed by that, so I expect to see a different setup in the future that is more respectful of the Mac platform.
Some of the lower end Mac models like the MacBook may get replaced by iPad-like successors in the future, but Apple would be quite dumb indeed to kill the Mac. A touch sensitive AIO desktop like the iMac but running iOS will probably debut some time in the near future - it's only a natural progression of the concept. But to go from assuming that to thinking the entire Mac line will be replaced is alarmist or stupid or both. Mac OS X can't be hybridized with iOS to create a limited computing environment because the vast majority of Mac users would balk at that prospect and switch to Windows immediately. You can't take the Mac and Mac OS X - a general computing platform - and morph it into a limited computing platform like the iOS iPlatform devices are and not expect much of the user base to revolt. Apple has pissed on loyal Mac customers a number of times, but a stunt like that would break the camel's back. Apple isn't that dumb (even though it acts like it sometimes) - the company knows that Windows 7 is a very respectable release and that people who demand regular PCs aren't going to accepted an iPlatform replacement instead.
Everyone needs Get a Grip. Btw, the post below me asks where Mac applications will be developed if Mac OS X and the iOS were to merge. If such an unlikely scenario were to occur, apps would be developed on that new platform. The better observation to make is, if Apple ports its iOS development tools to Windows then and only then could we say with certainty that the Mac would be on the way out. Right now the iOS is dependent on Mac OS X development. If that changes in the future all bets are off.
I got to the conversation late (and was disgusted by that moronic early troll post that got +5ed), but first of all Jobs already confirmed in one his terse personal email replies that the Mac is not being phased out or replaced by the iOS. Yes, it's troubling that nearly all the focus at this year's WWDC was on the iPlatforms and that there weren't even any design awards given to Mac developers. But Apple has heard that people were disappointed by that, so I expect to see a different setup in the future that is more respectful of the Mac platform.
Some of the lower end Mac models like the MacBook may get replaced by iPad-like successors in the future, but Apple would be quite dumb indeed to kill the Mac. A touch sensitive AIO desktop like the iMac but running iOS will probably debut some time in the near future - it's only a natural progression of the concept. But to go from assuming that to thinking the entire Mac line will be replaced is alarmist or stupid or both. Mac OS X can't be hybridized with iOS to create a limited computing environment because the vast majority of Mac users would balk at that prospect and switch to Windows immediately. You can't take a general computing platform and morph into a limited computing platform without much of that platform's user base revolting. Apple isn't dumb (even though it acts like it sometimes) - the company knows that Windows 7 is a very respectable release and that people who demand regular PCs aren't going to accept an iPlatform replacement instead.
Everyone needs Get a Grip. Btw, the post below me asks where Mac applications will be developed if Mac OS X and the iOS were to merge. If such an unlikely scenario were to occur, apps would be developed on that new platform. The better observation to make is, if Apple ports its iOS development tools to Windows then and only then could we say with certainty that the Mac would be on the way out. Right now the iOS is dependent on Mac OS X development. If that changes in the future all bets are off.
Christianity has left such a terrible taste in your mouth that you're soured to all religion. If my outlook on religion were based primary on Christianity (a frightening thought), I'd feel the same way. But don't be so quick to declare with certainty that there is nothing divine in the universe. The Christian man-god is a falsehood, but there is a G-d.
Based on what I've read and heard about this legal precedent, I'm having a difficult time understanding how it's at all constitutional. Let me get this straight - because Hispanics are supposedly underrepresented as a portion of the voting population, the Hispanics who voted in this court controlled election are getting 6 votes to the single vote that non-Hispanics get? They say this is supposed to provide equal protection to the Hispanic minority, but I don't see how granting extra votes to Hispanics doesn't adversely impact the equal protection guaranteed to every other citizen.
What am I missing here?
We're friends but I have to disagree with you Surt. Kibbutzim are no paradises either. They were never really that popular, never all that large as a percentage of the population, and they had to turn to capitalistic mechanisms to survive. They were also discredited in the eyes of many Israelis when the truth about Stalinist Russia hit the news there. Communism on the small scale can have some success, but it can't support large populations or whole countries, let alone the world as a whole. Look at how successful communist Vietnam was after the war - large portions of the population starved because their totalitarian economy couldn't produce rice.
Apparently the executives don't know much at all.
Dumb ass indeed. You seriously believe that Socialist Western Europe is better off than the United States? Have you heard of European states like Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain that are in sovereign debt crisis and failing because of their Socialist welfare states? Have you seen the value of the Euro lately? It's not done declining, by the way. Have you heard of Great Britain's sovereign debt crisis? Give me a break.
And yes, before you say it, I know that the United States has a huge looming sovereign debt crisis of its own, but that's due to the US attempting to emulate Europe. It's due to enormous governments at the federal and state levels, due to the Socialist Entitlements regime put in by two of the worst presidents in American history, FDR and LBJ, may they rot. The financial fraud perpetrated on the American public by Socialist Insecurity and Medicrap make Bernie Madoff look like a minor leaguer, yet all your beloved Democrats and Socialists want to do is to grow the unsustainable Socialist state even further. And you heard about our banking crisis in that hovel you reside in, right? In large part it was due to progressive pressure politics, the CRA and crooked Congressmen like Butt Pirate Barney Frank, who was literally in bed with the Socialist lending institutions Freddie and Fannie, declaring them to be financially sound right before the crisis hit.
Dude, I hope you're a troll because if you truly believe what you wrote, you've got to be one of the most pathetically moronic, deluded saps around. Seriously, look into a brain transplant.
Yeah, because Apple has never brought to market any worthwhile technology on its own.
In a civil case the burden of proof is usually having a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning it depends on which side presents a stronger case.
I too think it's wrong to be able to sue someone based on claims about IP addresses. Given that at least for IPv4 addresses are often dynamically assigned, isn't it possible that an unlucky person who got reassigned a heavy sharer's IP could get caught up in a sharing lawsuit without having committed the supposed offense? And besides, an IP address doesn't indicate who the specific individual was using the computer at that given time to download the offending content. It could have been Jack, his three sons, his daughter or some neighbor he generously lets use his WIFI.
Somewhat correct. Yes, Jews do hyphenate even the English equivalent of divine titles to avoid any potential desecration of the divine in written form. Yes, it is based on the commandment regarding not taking the divine name in vain. When not in prayer Jews don't pronounce Hebrew divine names in their normal form, either, using instead a permutation of them. However, hyphenation and permutations of the divine name are practices related to but separate from concern for protecting the Tetragrammaton, which was only spoken once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and guarded zealously otherwise.
As for Muslims and their concern over pictures of Mohammed and others they regard as prophets, that has to do not with guarding divine names but instead with guarding against idolatry and graven images. That taboo in Islam is similar to but more stringent than the taboos found in Judaism over the same practice. Finally, the Witnesses do believe in pronouncing what they regard as a divine name, but they are unquestionably in error because the name they use was a mistranslation/misunderstanding of vowel pointings of the Tetragrammaton. Specifically, there are no vowels known for the Tetragrammaton, but in some copies of the Hebrew Scriptures vowels are inserted for the term Adonai to remind the reader to pronounce it instead of pronounce the consonants of the Tetragrammaton. Some translators and Christian groups misunderstood this point and incorrectly derived the name used by the Witnesses.
Glad someone brought this up already. Yes, diaspora primarily refers to the Jewish dispersal across the globe as a result of the Roman occupation and destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the land of Israel. Diaspora literally means dispersion, and while it can refer to dispersals of other groups of people, the primary denotation of the term refers to the exile of the Jewish people. If others want to contest that, check out the definitions on m-w.com.
Why the project creators used this term for distributed funding of software and other projects is somewhat beyond me. They want to use an unconventional term for dispersal, but diaspora has a unique meaning and isn't really a term with a positive connotation.
I'm glad more people are waking up the fact that easily guessed security challenge questions suck donkey balls. Most of us probably go along and give weak answers that could be guessed, worst of which is likely Mother's Maiden Name since it's almost as common a data point as one's Socialist Insecurity number. I wish more sites would implement Chase's persistent cookie check that has you authenticate with a randomly generated code that gets emailed to the account's email address on file if the cookie isn't present. Of course, that still leaves one vulnerable if the email account gets hacked, but it's better than redundant and weak security questions. I dread having to fill those out, and it's especially painful on sites that require a bunch of them.
Oh, and by the way, I love - absolutely LOVE - seeing Socialists argue about whether or not the corrupt health care takeover legislation counts as real "reform" or does not because it doesn't go far enough in completely Socializing medicine. Ah leftists, you continually amaze me. Kudos to your side on successfully infiltrating and actively undermining our country, by the way.
The Constitution shall rise again.
Government salaries in the United States now rival private sector salaries, and the benefits are far better. The way you described your understanding government jobs is the way it used to be in America, but it's not like that anymore. It's been an upward trend over the last 20 years, I believe. That's one of the reasons why the country is rapidly bankrupting itself.
Absolutely. No one who has any actual experience with OS X would claim Mac users have to sort out dependencies. Whoever wrote that is utterly clueless.
I'm pretty knowledgeable when it comes to new Internet tech, but I don't offhand know the benefits of DNSSEC or much about it other than it has to do with Doman Name Servers and Security (I assume encryption). Is it a complement to SSL? Does it help secure browsing sessions or is it more about identifying and authenticating legitimate domain names versus questionable ones? I guess I'll have to read up on it.
He isn't just talking about regime change. He's talking about the destruction of the state - that's clear. And besides, there are videos of Ahmadinejad leading chants of "Death to the Jews."
This radical regime has no compunction about killing its own citizens, and it has continuously described its intention to destroy another sovereign country. Regime change needs to happen now, or else the world will sleep through a future preventable calamity yet again.
This is a quotation with a disputed origin, but the wisdom it contains cannot be disputed:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."
That is absolutely true, tverbeek. SJ tried to make that argument and it was largely laughed off by developers who were awaiting local apps and APIs. If Apple had continued to make that argument and had never rolled out the App Store, the iPhone (and its software platform) would not be the success it is today.