You do realize that you're quoting the report written by politicians, right?
Wrong.
Drafting Authors:
Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan Gregory,
Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann,
Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam
Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter Stott, Ronald J.
Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt
Exactly. You are calling those that did NOT ignore the "good" news from the report extremists... actually, you called them nutjobs.
Actually, I'm calling them nutjobs after reading their website. Not just on this one issue.
I don't know how much stock I'm going to put into a bunch of UN hired scientists. I put them just below Exxon employees on the credibility scale. At least Exxon did not watch half a million children die from starvation, tainted water and disease due to UN corruption
You've just confirmed my opinion of American conservatives. Better dig your bunker before the UN stormtroopers invade.
I didn't quote a "small very vocal band of extremists". The IPCC is a very conservative scientific panel. That's "conservative" in the scientific sense of not making unsubstantiated claims, not in the American political sense like the nutjobs you linked to.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations 12 . This is an
advance since the TARs conclusion that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns...
he original poster seriously thinks that protecting the second amendment is supremely important
Yes. But who in their right mind thinks that it's "Supremely" important? More important than every other issue: war, education, poverty, etc, etc. If you really are so single minded, yes, go ahead. Don't trouble yourself thinking about what a President actually does or can do.
But the pirated CD makers are doing it for money and just as MS sells space on its CD's for just a few more cents (as do many so called legit companies) so will pirate software distributors. Do you want to sell a CD for 4 dollars OR 4 dollars plus a bit for including some spyware/trojan?
And you know this how? How stupid would a distributor be to contaminate his product for a marginal profit, and lose all his sales when the word got around? I've lived in these countries, bootleg software vendors have shops in malls. They want repeat customers. Not angry ones demanding refunds and threatening them -- how angry would you be at someone who knowingly sold you infected software? The hassle isn't worth the minimal profit.
Unlike "free" downloaded warez, there is a profit already for the CDR dealer. He doesn't need to get sleazy like Real or Dell. He can just sell clean pirated software and make a living.
Since they're buying software, they own a computer, don't they? Put it on the net and you have a 'bot.
Did you notice that this is CAMBODIA? Later in TFA the writer noted how expensive it is for him to connect to download (legit) software. Average users in Cambodia have very limited access to the net. When was the last time you got spam from Cambodia?
Regardless of morality, there is no incentive for vendors to sell infected software. And they will lose all their sales if customers complain about getting infections; that's a strong incentive for them to keep their products clean.
He's talking about cd's sold on Cambodian markets. I can quite imagine one of those vendors wanting to operate a spam network on the side.
You can imagine it. I can't. I live in Hong Kong, I've bought a lot of bootleg CDs here and in Thailand. Never, ever have any been infected with viruses.
It makes no economic sense. The vendors make a couple of dollars per disc. They'd make at best a few cents per spambot. (And spambots in Cambodia? Give me a break. They don't have the connectivity.) But once the word got round that thay were selling infected softweare, they'd lose all their sales. These are people selling from market stalls; they stick around in the same place for months usually. If they sell bad products, they lose. Customers demand refunds. I have a few times when a disc was bad; a lot less hassle from these guys than legit dealers..
Every time you read an article quoting the BSA and such groups about software piracy they make this claim. It's just FUD. Note this writer never said he found viruses on his software, just that he was afraid of it. That's the "F" in FUD.
why would you vote for someone you don't agree with?
You will NEVER find a candidate that you agree with on every issue. ANd if you did, how sincere are they?
My point is that choosing a candidate on the basis of a single issue is not a good idea. And in this case, it's an issue that a President has little power to put into practice either way.
Don't get me wrong, I AM a gun nut, but a president who wants to illegalize private gun ownership seems like a pretty damn polarizing issue.
Sounds more like a man who's honest about his convictions. Unlike most politicians who back away from making any statements which might lose them votes with a well-organised pressure group.
Consider, for instace, Bill Clinton. It seems very unlikely to me, just going on his character, that he would not have been happy to sign a law restricting gun ownership. But in eight years of ofice he never made any progress on that. Foreign affairs is really the only place a President can make and change policy and get his way.
Even if I were a gun nut, I wouldn't make that the number one issue. For one thing, Presidents can't push through laws without the support of both Congress and the Senate. The next President will have lots of issues with more support to spend his political capital on.
The problem is that military technology is falling behind consumer technology.
If I read TFA correctly, this is not "consumer" technology. It was "cop" technology. Maybe not military grade, but tougher than your average Radio Shack gadget.
No, you're not missing anything....I'd say the media companies method is sound, and accurate
Yes he is. Try RTFA. It's not very long.
His fake client is to test what BAYTSP is using as "evidence". There are many other ways this could be faked.
For instance:
One easy way to make somebody look likea bittorrenter would be to get them to go to a website with the code <img src="http://tracker.com:12345/announce?info_hash=5 79CC43E4D66D35AE22312985EA04275939AB477&peer_id=as dfasdfadfasdf&amp;port=12434&compact=1"/>. They'd be on the tracker, and BayTSP would see their IP address, and might send them an infringement notice.
The harder part would more likely be convincing the judge that the user was using a torrent client in this manner
The writer goes to explain that the same effect could be caused by malicious HTML, making your browser connect to a tracker (but not downloading or uploading any torrents). So anyone could be set up this way.
The thing I find odd is that it (apparently, correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't cover simple cleanup/conversion re-releases of pub-dom work, and the cleaners can still assert copyright protection over the content. Can anyone cite me a "why"?
Publishers "assert" all kinds of rights and restrictions in their copyright notices. Very few are ever tested in court.
My opinion, you can't duplicate and reprint their pages, as their arrangement and layout has some originality and thus copyrightability. But abstracting the text and redoing it yourself should be fair use. But if there is really a lot of work to decipher, or translate, the orignal, they would have a greater claim than if they just ran some simple filters over a degraded original.
Communism, as an idelogy & theory of economics, didn't kill millions of people. Poor planning & rushed collectivization killed millions of people.
Except that seems to have happened in almost every Communist country. Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia. Maybe Cuba is the only communist country that didn't have terrible famines and death due to economic mismanagement, but they were propped up for decades by the USSR. Unbridled capitalism is evil, but unbridled communism is 10 times worse.
Slashdot Mirror
The headline chosen by kdawson was "llinois Bill Would Ban Social Networking Sites", which is a ludicrous distortion.
If your definition is so broad, who isn't?
Don't despair. Maybe you can call the ACLU and get them to intercede for this discriminatory act. It's not your fault you're differently abled.
Really? How interesting. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Wrong.
Google the names. Professors, not politicians.Actually, I'm calling them nutjobs after reading their website. Not just on this one issue.
I don't know how much stock I'm going to put into a bunch of UN hired scientists. I put them just below Exxon employees on the credibility scale. At least Exxon did not watch half a million children die from starvation, tainted water and disease due to UN corruption
You've just confirmed my opinion of American conservatives. Better dig your bunker before the UN stormtroopers invade.
I didn't quote a "small very vocal band of extremists". The IPCC is a very conservative scientific panel. That's "conservative" in the scientific sense of not making unsubstantiated claims, not in the American political sense like the nutjobs you linked to.
Yes. But who in their right mind thinks that it's "Supremely" important? More important than every other issue: war, education, poverty, etc, etc. If you really are so single minded, yes, go ahead. Don't trouble yourself thinking about what a President actually does or can do.
And you know this how? How stupid would a distributor be to contaminate his product for a marginal profit, and lose all his sales when the word got around? I've lived in these countries, bootleg software vendors have shops in malls. They want repeat customers. Not angry ones demanding refunds and threatening them -- how angry would you be at someone who knowingly sold you infected software? The hassle isn't worth the minimal profit.
Unlike "free" downloaded warez, there is a profit already for the CDR dealer. He doesn't need to get sleazy like Real or Dell. He can just sell clean pirated software and make a living.
Did you notice that this is CAMBODIA? Later in TFA the writer noted how expensive it is for him to connect to download (legit) software. Average users in Cambodia have very limited access to the net. When was the last time you got spam from Cambodia?
Regardless of morality, there is no incentive for vendors to sell infected software. And they will lose all their sales if customers complain about getting infections; that's a strong incentive for them to keep their products clean.
You can imagine it. I can't. I live in Hong Kong, I've bought a lot of bootleg CDs here and in Thailand. Never, ever have any been infected with viruses.
It makes no economic sense. The vendors make a couple of dollars per disc. They'd make at best a few cents per spambot. (And spambots in Cambodia? Give me a break. They don't have the connectivity.) But once the word got round that thay were selling infected softweare, they'd lose all their sales. These are people selling from market stalls; they stick around in the same place for months usually. If they sell bad products, they lose. Customers demand refunds. I have a few times when a disc was bad; a lot less hassle from these guys than legit dealers..
Every time you read an article quoting the BSA and such groups about software piracy they make this claim. It's just FUD. Note this writer never said he found viruses on his software, just that he was afraid of it. That's the "F" in FUD.
You will NEVER find a candidate that you agree with on every issue. ANd if you did, how sincere are they?
My point is that choosing a candidate on the basis of a single issue is not a good idea. And in this case, it's an issue that a President has little power to put into practice either way.
That sleazebag? Morgan Freeman was much more presidential.
Sounds more like a man who's honest about his convictions. Unlike most politicians who back away from making any statements which might lose them votes with a well-organised pressure group.
Consider, for instace, Bill Clinton. It seems very unlikely to me, just going on his character, that he would not have been happy to sign a law restricting gun ownership. But in eight years of ofice he never made any progress on that. Foreign affairs is really the only place a President can make and change policy and get his way.
Even if I were a gun nut, I wouldn't make that the number one issue. For one thing, Presidents can't push through laws without the support of both Congress and the Senate. The next President will have lots of issues with more support to spend his political capital on.
If I read TFA correctly, this is not "consumer" technology. It was "cop" technology. Maybe not military grade, but tougher than your average Radio Shack gadget.
Yes. Well spotted, Citizen! Hitler, Stalin and Mao, for instance, understood this principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu
Yes he is. Try RTFA. It's not very long. His fake client is to test what BAYTSP is using as "evidence". There are many other ways this could be faked.
For instance:
The writer goes to explain that the same effect could be caused by malicious HTML, making your browser connect to a tracker (but not downloading or uploading any torrents). So anyone could be set up this way.
From the summary: face te same fight. How hard is it to spellcheck?
Publishers "assert" all kinds of rights and restrictions in their copyright notices. Very few are ever tested in court.
My opinion, you can't duplicate and reprint their pages, as their arrangement and layout has some originality and thus copyrightability. But abstracting the text and redoing it yourself should be fair use. But if there is really a lot of work to decipher, or translate, the orignal, they would have a greater claim than if they just ran some simple filters over a degraded original.
I was expressing incredulity. Not agreement with his methods.
Except that seems to have happened in almost every Communist country. Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia. Maybe Cuba is the only communist country that didn't have terrible famines and death due to economic mismanagement, but they were propped up for decades by the USSR. Unbridled capitalism is evil, but unbridled communism is 10 times worse.
Cool. But I think I'll trust the 97%.