he cheap wireless card is worth the fact that you don't have to do any labor.
I think a few yards of phone or CAT5 and some tacks are cheaper. Also, probably less work (certainly much less time) to do so than installing a wireless card, and all the concomitant security setup. If you actually have some mobile hardware, sure, otherwise it's technology for its own sake.
but the id10ts who installed the cameras are letting anyone, including terrorists, access the cameras.
Is that sarcasm or stupidity? Without the correct smiley it's hard to tell.
Actually, having surveillance cameras online is an excellent way to make people aware of how much they're being spied on. I might hope their reaction would be more "get rid of these things" than "stop the terrorists/paedophiles/whatever from accessing them.
I always thought the easy availability of satelite images of military bases was kind of odd.
Since there are several countries with excellent spy satellites up, and not a few purely commercial ones, it's impossible to prevent anyone with the inclination and a little money from getting good images of anything they want, regardless of what the US does.
I've been quite frustrated travelling by bicycle in several Asian countries at the lack of topographic maps available (you really want to know where the hills are when you're planning a bike trip). The reason cited is of course "national security", but you find that tour guides have military maps bought from their buddies in the army; and often you can find colonial era maps in public libraries in Western countries (eg, Dutch maps of Indonesia, British of Malaysia, French of Indochina), so the only people inconvenienced are innocent travellers.
The FOIA grants any information requested to the requester, given that such information exists and isn't vital to national security. Why should this be so? Why isn't it a requirement that the requester provide a valid reason and specific need for that information.
One important reason is that just knowing that records will be available for public scrutiny removes temptation for bureaucrats to do a lot of things not in the public interest -- making sweetheart deals, sweeping nasty health risks under the carpet, and much more that you don't have to be an X-Files geek to appreciate. "Providing a valid reason" is just asking for a whole judicial apparatus to decide how "valid" the excuse is, wasting much more effort than simply providing the information requested, and allowing bureaucrats with something to hide a tool to keep it hidden. It's not just about trying to get the "real" Roswell/Grassy Knoll/Philadelpia Experiment files that are the stuff of your "sweaty geeks" fantasies.
you say they're both wrong because... why, exactly? Just because you want to be right?
First, I know nothing about this particular case. I'm just saying what seems more likely, knowing that people in showbiz and politics have no respect for the truth when it comes to PR, and both parties have an agenda. In this case, it suits both parties to assert that the pressure was the deciding factor. The host because it makes him a martyr istead of a loser, the group because it makes them look powerful.
If these shows really were popular, they'd have quickly found a home on another network, though maybe a smaller one.
Anyway, their views are not "censored"; they can easily find alternative media to disseminate them, just maybe they won't get paid as much. I don't complain how my favorite sitcom was "censored" when it isn't renewed.
Sorry, but if you think no one was watching these shows you're just not paying attention
There are plenty of shows offensive to "liberals" enjoying success. They do so because advertisers support them. If enough rednecks watch a show, they can get ads, they'll stay on the air. It's Darwinian. If the network selling the ads can't find advertisers who want to advertise on a popular show, they're idiots.
This kind of censorship doesn't come only from the one side. Both Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh had to withdraw from TV because their supposedly oppressed political and moral opponents put enough pressure on advertisers that they withdrew
I find it hard to think of this as "censorship". If there were enough people actually watching these wackos, someone would be happy to pay to advertise to them. If no one wants to buy ads on a show, it dies. That's commercial TV. "We were forced off TV by liberal censorship" sounds better than "We were canned because the Nielsons sucked".
it's easy to remember if you've seen a single one of them before
My point was, you may well remember seeing the story or link, but it's harder to remember if it was from a submision that was rejected or one that was published. But the main issue is that you don't really have to, a simple automated search could give you a list of similar stories and 10 seconds would let a human scan through this and find almost all dupes.
Simplicity is just not a solid argument for keeping something legal though. Anyone can walk into a shop, put an item for sale in their pocket, and walk out without paying. Does that mean stealing should become legal because it's incredibly simple to do?
No, but the outline of a simple plan to do so, as you did, should not be. And if anyone had RTFA, they'd know Felton was not talking about the legality of using P2P, but of the writing of apps to do so. Since just about any app that is capable of networking could be used to do P2P with greater or less convenience, there is really no sensible way to ban "P2P apps" and have an Internet at all.
Umm, if I publish a recipe for crack that uses 2 less ingredients than the normal recipe and takes only half the time to make, why would that be a valid argument for making crack legal? Don't get me wrong I think the act is idiotic, but I don't follow Mr. Felton's reasoning here.
Well, by reading TFA, one finds out that his reasoning is:
I wrote TinyP2P to illustrate the difficulty of regulating peer-to-peer applications. Peer-to-peer apps can be very simple, and any moderately skilled programmer can write one, so attempts to ban their creation would be fruitless.
If you want a crack analogy, it'd be something along the lines of: "You can make crack illegal, but you can't (practically) make the recipe for making it illegal". And to prove that, here is a recipe, courtesy of the DOJ
Crack is produced by dissolving powdered cocaine in a mixture of water and ammonia or sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). The mixture is boiled until a solid substance forms. The solid is removed from the liquid, dried, and then broken into the chunks (rocks) that are sold as crack cocaine.
(I realise that it's lacking a few, probably vital, details, but a DOJ link was hard to resist.) In case you want a practical recipe, Morgan's Crack House has:
Ingredients:
1-2 grams coke 4 tablespoons baking soda Some bottled water Take a cookie sheet and sprinkle a light covering of coke on the bottom. No more than 1 - 1/2 tablespoons. Now, take 1 tablespoons or so of Baking Soda, and sprinkle it on top. Add 2 teaspoons of water evenly. Cook at 300 deg. for 15 min. Sprinkle Pot if you want to really do it up on top. Add rest of coke evenly, and 2 more tablespoons of baking soda evenly. Bake at 300 for 25-30 min. Let sit OVERNIGHT. Put in freezer 15- 20 minutes, or until hard. Crack off small peices and enjoy!
Note that as there are only 3 ingredients, including water, it would be truly revolutionary to invent a "recipe for crack that uses 2 less ingredients".
stuff like this is easy to remember even 6 months later that you have read about it, thus it probably being a dupe, so you should check....)
Though I do agree that it eould be trivial to automatically flag possible dupes, depending on memory isn't going to work. The editors must read dozens or maybe more submissions every day, and many of these will be dupes, so remembering you've "seen something like that before", as we humble readers do, is not going to work.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
But grasshopper - I am here:)
And I live in HK.
And all those rich locals...yes, but their numbers are almost too low to measure.
Yes; but so always were the numbers of scholars who preserved and recorded the culture. Previously, 99% were peasant farmers, now maybe it's 90%. Perhaps more revolutionary than the number of nouveaux riches is the growth of a middle class, something never before seen in China. Anyway, I don't see history weighing more on China than any other country. Living memory is what drives the world, in China as everywhere. Chinese may talk a lot about 5000 years of tradition, but usually that's a prelude to demanding more compensation for an old ruin, which they'll happily pocket and go on to buy a concrete town house and a new car with the profits.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
China works with a different idea of time and scope from other cultures. Where the US shifts, as an example, seem to be 50 years or less, China does 500.
Orintalist fantasy. You've obviously never actually been to China in a last few decades and seen the fantastic speed at which it's developing. China went through a century of revolutions and since the 1980s when Deng made it a policy to aim for economic development and not worry about ideology, factories and skyscrapers have been sprouting like mushrooms. China's history does not slow it down; it lost most of it during the Cultural Revolution anyway. China has a lot more businessmen in expensive suits with PDAs and Mercedes living in highrise luxury apartments than Confucian scholars reading the Analects these days.
Against that, a lot of software upgrades were forced all over the world, earning income for American companies -- my company in Hong Kong for instance had to upgrade its DacEasy accounting package in 1999, which we otherwise had no need to do (it just refused to accept dates in 2000 as due dates for invoices, so 12 month credits couldn't be given until we upgraded).
However, that still leaves a major problem. So, you know that the key was stolen from a Sony DVD player - do you now make every Sony DVD player useless for playing new movies?
No, the idea is that each player has a unique code. So they revoke the code for that player. (The code to do this is part of every new disk -- if you play them, it updates your player automatically.)
PKD died before his first movie was optioned. My point still stands.
No, Blade Runner (from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) had started production, he died (in 1982) before it was released. I'd be surprised if other works hadn't been optioned by then, though he probably wouldn't have got more than a few thousand as no others had been executed.
"Instead of paying one star 20 million for a picture why not pay 200 actors 100,000 for several movies? Duh cuz that would make sense
The movies where the A-list star gets $20 million have a total budget of at least $120 million. The stars are not the main cost. If you've ever been on the set of a big movie (I've done some extra work) the scale of the project is immense.
Anyway, there are many hundreds of "small" movies made. They might struggle to get into cinemas, but you can find them, maybe at film festivals, on TV, or direct to video. Of course, a lot of them are crap, but so are a lot of big budget movies, and at least you'll have the chance of being surprised.
The problem is that many modern categorisation systems assume that people know how they want to categorise their own data. They therefore aalow individuals to use whatever word/phrase they want to tag their data with
I think this is basically the problem Google tries to solve (http://images.google.com/, which relates images to words, in the title of the image files and the text around it on the HTML page) -- the embedded metadata in HTML is often absent, wrong, or deliberately bogus, so the subject has to be inferred from the text itself, and more importantly from the links others make to it - and these links are analogous to the tags here under discussion. The synonym problem exists here too, but given enough links you can decide which meaning is most relevant.
It's becoming almost compulsory to make some fatuous, inappropriate movie reference to get your articles posted on Slashdot these days (eg, the "James Bond" peelable paint -- not a fucking word about James Bond in TFA, of course). And in this one, "Comet-Buster": it's NOT going to "bust" the comet; it'll smack into it all right, but that's all. The editors seem to be as easily amused and deceived as an average 9-year-od.
He stated that he frequently found illegal materials in his downloads. Legally it follows he had an expectation that when downloading pornographicical images some of said images are illegal. He had not STOPPED as you claim but continued even though deleted some images.
Therefore its clear that he knew that this activity in the future would likely mean the downloading of the illegal images, how can you claim that it is otherwise than illegal behaviour?
If I find that someone emails me kiddie porn every day, obfuscating the headers so that I can't tell what it is till I look at it, does it follow that I must give up using email, as that would be the only way to avoid having illegal files on my PC? Same argument goes for websites that aren't what you expected due to the domain expiring, etc -- I must give up surfing the web? ANY method of file transfer has the risk of turning up mislabelled content.
Neither the Atlantic no the Pacific appeared to be a significant barrier to projection of military force during World War II...the US projected it in both directions, and achieved its objectives.
In both cases the US had whole countries to use as beachheads.
Slashdot Mirror
The posts are about aircraft, so are the ads. You don't think there are clerks manually selecting the ads for every search you do, do you?
I think a few yards of phone or CAT5 and some tacks are cheaper. Also, probably less work (certainly much less time) to do so than installing a wireless card, and all the concomitant security setup. If you actually have some mobile hardware, sure, otherwise it's technology for its own sake.
The difference is that you when you click on the links now you see their incredibly sucky new interface.
Tack them above the skirting board. Works for me.
Is that sarcasm or stupidity? Without the correct smiley it's hard to tell.
Actually, having surveillance cameras online is an excellent way to make people aware of how much they're being spied on. I might hope their reaction would be more "get rid of these things" than "stop the terrorists/paedophiles/whatever from accessing them.
Since there are several countries with excellent spy satellites up, and not a few purely commercial ones, it's impossible to prevent anyone with the inclination and a little money from getting good images of anything they want, regardless of what the US does.
I've been quite frustrated travelling by bicycle in several Asian countries at the lack of topographic maps available (you really want to know where the hills are when you're planning a bike trip). The reason cited is of course "national security", but you find that tour guides have military maps bought from their buddies in the army; and often you can find colonial era maps in public libraries in Western countries (eg, Dutch maps of Indonesia, British of Malaysia, French of Indochina), so the only people inconvenienced are innocent travellers.
One important reason is that just knowing that records will be available for public scrutiny removes temptation for bureaucrats to do a lot of things not in the public interest -- making sweetheart deals, sweeping nasty health risks under the carpet, and much more that you don't have to be an X-Files geek to appreciate. "Providing a valid reason" is just asking for a whole judicial apparatus to decide how "valid" the excuse is, wasting much more effort than simply providing the information requested, and allowing bureaucrats with something to hide a tool to keep it hidden. It's not just about trying to get the "real" Roswell/Grassy Knoll/Philadelpia Experiment files that are the stuff of your "sweaty geeks" fantasies.
First, I know nothing about this particular case. I'm just saying what seems more likely, knowing that people in showbiz and politics have no respect for the truth when it comes to PR, and both parties have an agenda. In this case, it suits both parties to assert that the pressure was the deciding factor. The host because it makes him a martyr istead of a loser, the group because it makes them look powerful.
If these shows really were popular, they'd have quickly found a home on another network, though maybe a smaller one.
Anyway, their views are not "censored"; they can easily find alternative media to disseminate them, just maybe they won't get paid as much. I don't complain how my favorite sitcom was "censored" when it isn't renewed.
There are plenty of shows offensive to "liberals" enjoying success. They do so because advertisers support them. If enough rednecks watch a show, they can get ads, they'll stay on the air. It's Darwinian. If the network selling the ads can't find advertisers who want to advertise on a popular show, they're idiots.
I find it hard to think of this as "censorship". If there were enough people actually watching these wackos, someone would be happy to pay to advertise to them. If no one wants to buy ads on a show, it dies. That's commercial TV. "We were forced off TV by liberal censorship" sounds better than "We were canned because the Nielsons sucked".
My point was, you may well remember seeing the story or link, but it's harder to remember if it was from a submision that was rejected or one that was published. But the main issue is that you don't really have to, a simple automated search could give you a list of similar stories and 10 seconds would let a human scan through this and find almost all dupes.
No, but the outline of a simple plan to do so, as you did, should not be. And if anyone had RTFA, they'd know Felton was not talking about the legality of using P2P, but of the writing of apps to do so. Since just about any app that is capable of networking could be used to do P2P with greater or less convenience, there is really no sensible way to ban "P2P apps" and have an Internet at all.
Well, by reading TFA, one finds out that his reasoning is:
If you want a crack analogy, it'd be something along the lines of: "You can make crack illegal, but you can't (practically) make the recipe for making it illegal". And to prove that, here is a recipe, courtesy of the DOJ (I realise that it's lacking a few, probably vital, details, but a DOJ link was hard to resist.) In case you want a practical recipe, Morgan's Crack House has: Note that as there are only 3 ingredients, including water, it would be truly revolutionary to invent a "recipe for crack that uses 2 less ingredients".Though I do agree that it eould be trivial to automatically flag possible dupes, depending on memory isn't going to work. The editors must read dozens or maybe more submissions every day, and many of these will be dupes, so remembering you've "seen something like that before", as we humble readers do, is not going to work.
And I live in HK.
And all those rich locals...yes, but their numbers are almost too low to measure.
Yes; but so always were the numbers of scholars who preserved and recorded the culture. Previously, 99% were peasant farmers, now maybe it's 90%. Perhaps more revolutionary than the number of nouveaux riches is the growth of a middle class, something never before seen in China. Anyway, I don't see history weighing more on China than any other country. Living memory is what drives the world, in China as everywhere. Chinese may talk a lot about 5000 years of tradition, but usually that's a prelude to demanding more compensation for an old ruin, which they'll happily pocket and go on to buy a concrete town house and a new car with the profits.
Orintalist fantasy. You've obviously never actually been to China in a last few decades and seen the fantastic speed at which it's developing. China went through a century of revolutions and since the 1980s when Deng made it a policy to aim for economic development and not worry about ideology, factories and skyscrapers have been sprouting like mushrooms. China's history does not slow it down; it lost most of it during the Cultural Revolution anyway. China has a lot more businessmen in expensive suits with PDAs and Mercedes living in highrise luxury apartments than Confucian scholars reading the Analects these days.
Against that, a lot of software upgrades were forced all over the world, earning income for American companies -- my company in Hong Kong for instance had to upgrade its DacEasy accounting package in 1999, which we otherwise had no need to do (it just refused to accept dates in 2000 as due dates for invoices, so 12 month credits couldn't be given until we upgraded).
No, the idea is that each player has a unique code. So they revoke the code for that player. (The code to do this is part of every new disk -- if you play them, it updates your player automatically.)
No, Blade Runner (from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) had started production, he died (in 1982) before it was released. I'd be surprised if other works hadn't been optioned by then, though he probably wouldn't have got more than a few thousand as no others had been executed.
The movies where the A-list star gets $20 million have a total budget of at least $120 million. The stars are not the main cost. If you've ever been on the set of a big movie (I've done some extra work) the scale of the project is immense.
Anyway, there are many hundreds of "small" movies made. They might struggle to get into cinemas, but you can find them, maybe at film festivals, on TV, or direct to video. Of course, a lot of them are crap, but so are a lot of big budget movies, and at least you'll have the chance of being surprised.
I think this is basically the problem Google tries to solve (http://images.google.com/, which relates images to words, in the title of the image files and the text around it on the HTML page) -- the embedded metadata in HTML is often absent, wrong, or deliberately bogus, so the subject has to be inferred from the text itself, and more importantly from the links others make to it - and these links are analogous to the tags here under discussion. The synonym problem exists here too, but given enough links you can decide which meaning is most relevant.
That's "minuscule".
It's becoming almost compulsory to make some fatuous, inappropriate movie reference to get your articles posted on Slashdot these days (eg, the "James Bond" peelable paint -- not a fucking word about James Bond in TFA, of course). And in this one, "Comet-Buster": it's NOT going to "bust" the comet; it'll smack into it all right, but that's all. The editors seem to be as easily amused and deceived as an average 9-year-od.
If I find that someone emails me kiddie porn every day, obfuscating the headers so that I can't tell what it is till I look at it, does it follow that I must give up using email, as that would be the only way to avoid having illegal files on my PC? Same argument goes for websites that aren't what you expected due to the domain expiring, etc -- I must give up surfing the web? ANY method of file transfer has the risk of turning up mislabelled content.
In both cases the US had whole countries to use as beachheads.