Adults already know what happens in realistic situations, but they want to know what happens in situations that they can't try in the real world...
my wife has no interest in leaving me for a lesbian (there are certain things that only a man can provide, and she enjoys those things very much), and I have never cheated on her.
A whistleblower takes his knowledge and does not go public with it. This guy mailed this stuff to the newspapers, that's why he's in trouble. Had he contacted any one of a dozen agencies to handle the complaint, he'd be in no legal trouble. The whisteblower law would protect him.
The problem is that those agencies belong to the Executive Branch, which is not interested in the release or investigation of this particular knowledge!
Given the current administration's disdain of oversight of its activities, no law in the land would protect said whisleblower from disappearance once this Branch found him in possession of this Evidence.
The best way to protect both the Evidence and himself was to go public.
Again, bullshit. Google is an informaiton company. Their entire existence is justified by making access to and use of information easier. If they censor that information based on the petty politics of nationalists (or any other political concern) then they are not serving their purpose.
They are not censoring their information, only the subset of it they present to Chinese audiences. As long as Google's services which claim to be uncensored actually are, then Google does serve their purpose - just not to the Chinese.
They are in fact reinforcing the policies of censorship and repression in China. If everyone, every company goes along with these policies then what motivation is there to change them?
China doesn't need Google's help to reinforce repressive policies. They're quite equipped to force these on their own.
- Be present in China, albeit in mutilated form. The censorship would be declared, not secret. As such, Google's chinese services would not claim to comprehensively represent Google's services.
- Not operate in China at all.
China doesn't need Google very much; they already have Yahoo, MSN, et al. As such, Google declining to operate in China would do almost nothing to further the cause of free speech because it would not damage the opponents of free speech in the slightest.
Because Google lacks the potential to "further" the cause of free speech in this altercation, their failure to advance that cause in China is not sufficient to warrant the claim of evilness.
The key to this lies in making tools to gather from the user what they want their page to appear as - and scribbling out the appropriate HTML code to have that happen...
The user need not have to deal with "user-hostile" applications just because the Standards are borked... the apps could abstract that out of the view of the casual user.
From the Legal Terms on the website: ARTICLE X : FORCE MAJEURE
Novinit will not be responsible for the non-execution of its obligations if this non-execution results from an independent act, if it is independent from its will and if it is escaping to its control. Will be considered as a fortuitous case or force majeure, all facts or circumstances which are irresistible, exterior to the parties, unpredictable, unavoidable, independent from the parties' will, and which cannot be impeached by the latter.
If something should happen to Us(Novinit), we aren't responsible for delivering....
Riiiiight...
PS: Who's "the latter" who cannot impeach, anyway??
Although this machine translation has been handled by a human at some point, that human didn't speak English, apparently
>>PAYMENT:--- ONLY ACCEPT:--- 1/ INTERNATIONAL BONK TO BANK TRANSFER--- 2/ WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL TRANSFER
This guy will accept his $100K the same ways kidnappers accept theirs!
No sending an intermediate party after this guy to get your $$$ back (as one could with, say, a credit card)... and somehow I doubt Hong Kong's laws would protect an American buyer if something went sour...
I wouldn't mind our government using proprietary software if it proved better suited to the task, provided that
I, as a citizen, am not compelled to use proprietary software to get what I need/want from it. Whether it be downloading tax forms, obtaining a list of sex offenders near me, or renewing my plates, I should never be required to use a company's product to access public information held by my oh-so-benevolent government.
The government isn't shackled to the whims of any company or cartel. This means M$ or RedHat. If it doesn't work out, the government can bid the job to someone else with minimal hassle in the changeover.
It seems to me that to require our government to use open formats is wise and comforting, but that specifying how they must do so is... well... irrelevent.
The only snafu I see with using proprietary software (in those instances where it is easier for the numbskull operator to use) is in ensuring that it implements the open format CORRECTLY! (not a la MS Java...)
Prize for X-Box compatibility?! ;)
on
Robot Wars
·
· Score: 1
Wonder who'll win the $200k for gaining control of one of these babies on an unmodded X-Box...
Identifying sharers on the Gnutella network
on
RIAA to Sue You Now
·
· Score: 1
It is not necessary to connect to the sharer to identify what he is sharing.
When you send out your Query, just broadcast it normally. Then, sift through the returned QueryHits and find the ones with the target's Servent ID number. This must be accurate and consistent is the target is truly sharing files, because it's how Gnet tells the appropriate server of the request to download it.
Make sure your Queries are specific enough to not overrun the "Return X queries per search" option set in the target's software.
Initiate a download. Linking the ServentID with an IP address for a firewalled user is left as an exercise for the reader.
Which brings up another point: the consulting firms for the XXaa will have to successfully complete some portions of download of copyrighted material to verify that it is actually being Distributed...
This special remix will eventually appear on Gnutella, and everyone will know where it came from. Some third-party company will analyze traffic and estimate the extent to which this song is shared. Then, they will compare it with how many copies were downloaded.
And they will demonstrate that DRM is the only thing that will protect their $$.
... while kicking our "we want unbridled access to our DL'd material, and we'd buy THAT" rhetoric right in the teeth...
The "Good People" of the world will then believe that such DRM must be implemented (taking entirely for granted that the xxAA's $$ deserve to be saved)and will attempt to do so.
This is just a distraction to nullify any normal-sounding approach coming from us, leaving only radical ideas involving the death of old business models-- which noone wants to hear...
The "conclusion" that has been [almost] reached is that the cause of the weirdness in Nick is the same as the cause of the similar (attenuated) weirdness in each of his parents.
The suggestion is genetic predisposition.
The parents' occupations are effects, not causes.
I object to the claim that privacy is not inherent in the human condition. Privacy has always been inherent in the human condition ever since the days when, if you wanted privacy, you needed only to hold your discussion behind the barn.
It is entirely fallacy that, since the people subscribe to modern conveniences, the privacy that was once ours by default now should belong to the government (with their increased technology and manpower to devote to monitoring, which was never inherent in their condition) by default.
This is simply an attempt by self-proclaimed "centrists" to increase the role of government to unprecedented levels in our lives in the name of Protection.
BTW, do you really believe that monitoring Americans and prohibiting Americans from using strong cryptography would prevent terrorists from using technology to achieve privacy???
Slashdot Mirror
Every time I break one, how much manufacturing energy and material resources do I waste? Probably more than the energy savings...
The problem is that those agencies belong to the Executive Branch, which is not interested in the release or investigation of this particular knowledge!
Given the current administration's disdain of oversight of its activities, no law in the land would protect said whisleblower from disappearance once this Branch found him in possession of this Evidence.
The best way to protect both the Evidence and himself was to go public.
They are not censoring their information, only the subset of it they present to Chinese audiences. As long as Google's services which claim to be uncensored actually are, then Google does serve their purpose - just not to the Chinese.
China doesn't need Google's help to reinforce repressive policies. They're quite equipped to force these on their own.
Google had the decision to either:
- Be present in China, albeit in mutilated form. The censorship would be declared, not secret. As such, Google's chinese services would not claim to comprehensively represent Google's services. - Not operate in China at all.
China doesn't need Google very much; they already have Yahoo, MSN, et al. As such, Google declining to operate in China would do almost nothing to further the cause of free speech because it would not damage the opponents of free speech in the slightest.
Because Google lacks the potential to "further" the cause of free speech in this altercation, their failure to advance that cause in China is not sufficient to warrant the claim of evilness.
I'm surprised that you didn't fix "exempli gratia = for example" while you were in there.
There's always BitTorrent: http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3372343
"According to our studies, 100% of illegally obtained music is enjoyed through speakers." said RIAA spokesman, Steven Jones [sic]
Boy, are you out of touch! Don't you know REAL pirates only listen through earbuds?!!
There should be many reads - it's the boot writes you ought to worry about...
... so it could be anybody...
Unfortunately, the children would have to be homozygous for the allele in question to benefit much from it.
The key to this lies in making tools to gather from the user what they want their page to appear as - and scribbling out the appropriate HTML code to have that happen...
:>
The user need not have to deal with "user-hostile" applications just because the Standards are borked... the apps could abstract that out of the view of the casual user.
Any ideas for one?
He doesn't look anything like "Daddy"!! My GF KNOWS!!
Mmmm.... bumper cars on ice...
Really, cars can never control themselves this well in inclement weather...
What happens when a car loses control of itself? No-fault insurance, anyone??
From the Legal Terms on the website:
ARTICLE X : FORCE MAJEURE
Novinit will not be responsible for the non-execution of its obligations if this non-execution results from an independent act, if it is independent from its will and if it is escaping to its control. Will be considered as a fortuitous case or force majeure, all facts or circumstances which are irresistible, exterior to the parties, unpredictable, unavoidable, independent from the parties' will, and which cannot be impeached by the latter.
If something should happen to Us(Novinit), we aren't responsible for delivering.... Riiiiight...
PS: Who's "the latter" who cannot impeach, anyway??
Although this machine translation has been handled by a human at some point, that human didn't speak English, apparently
Not familiar with HP-UX, but...
Are you suggesting that the Boot Console Handler in question couldn't be implemented in the EFI??
>>PAYMENT:--- ONLY ACCEPT:--- 1/ INTERNATIONAL BONK TO BANK TRANSFER--- 2/ WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL TRANSFER
This guy will accept his $100K the same ways kidnappers accept theirs!
No sending an intermediate party after this guy to get your $$$ back (as one could with, say, a credit card)... and somehow I doubt Hong Kong's laws would protect an American buyer if something went sour...
I, as a citizen, am not compelled to use proprietary software to get what I need/want from it. Whether it be downloading tax forms, obtaining a list of sex offenders near me, or renewing my plates, I should never be required to use a company's product to access public information held by my oh-so-benevolent government.
The government isn't shackled to the whims of any company or cartel. This means M$ or RedHat. If it doesn't work out, the government can bid the job to someone else with minimal hassle in the changeover.
It seems to me that to require our government to use open formats is wise and comforting, but that specifying how they must do so is... well... irrelevent.
The only snafu I see with using proprietary software (in those instances where it is easier for the numbskull operator to use) is in ensuring that it implements the open format CORRECTLY! (not a la MS Java...)
Wonder who'll win the $200k for gaining control of one of these babies on an unmodded X-Box...
It is not necessary to connect to the sharer to identify what he is sharing. When you send out your Query, just broadcast it normally. Then, sift through the returned QueryHits and find the ones with the target's Servent ID number. This must be accurate and consistent is the target is truly sharing files, because it's how Gnet tells the appropriate server of the request to download it. Make sure your Queries are specific enough to not overrun the "Return X queries per search" option set in the target's software. Initiate a download. Linking the ServentID with an IP address for a firewalled user is left as an exercise for the reader. Which brings up another point: the consulting firms for the XXaa will have to successfully complete some portions of download of copyrighted material to verify that it is actually being Distributed...
This. Is. A. Set-up.
This special remix will eventually appear on Gnutella, and everyone will know where it came from. Some third-party company will analyze traffic and estimate the extent to which this song is shared. Then, they will compare it with how many copies were downloaded.
And they will demonstrate that DRM is the only thing that will protect their $$.
... while kicking our "we want unbridled access to our DL'd material, and we'd buy THAT" rhetoric right in the teeth...
The "Good People" of the world will then believe that such DRM must be implemented (taking entirely for granted that the xxAA's $$ deserve to be saved)and will attempt to do so.
This is just a distraction to nullify any normal-sounding approach coming from us, leaving only radical ideas involving the death of old business models-- which noone wants to hear...
The "conclusion" that has been [almost] reached is that the cause of the weirdness in Nick is the same as the cause of the similar (attenuated) weirdness in each of his parents. The suggestion is genetic predisposition. The parents' occupations are effects, not causes.
I object to the claim that privacy is not inherent in the human condition. Privacy has always been inherent in the human condition ever since the days when, if you wanted privacy, you needed only to hold your discussion behind the barn.
It is entirely fallacy that, since the people subscribe to modern conveniences, the privacy that was once ours by default now should belong to the government (with their increased technology and manpower to devote to monitoring, which was never inherent in their condition) by default.
This is simply an attempt by self-proclaimed "centrists" to increase the role of government to unprecedented levels in our lives in the name of Protection. BTW, do you really believe that monitoring Americans and prohibiting Americans from using strong cryptography would prevent terrorists from using technology to achieve privacy???