Why would more realistic computer graphics have a stronger effect than the highly realistic special effects used in splatter movies?
Sure, you will find some kooks who say "the gamez made me do it". They used to say that about EC comics, about Hitchcock movies. Loonies will have no problem finding something to trigger them. There's plenty of gore in the Bible, and a lot of nutters have been inspired by that to commit heinous crimes.
I hope don't cause my business plan to bomb in a local business plan competition.
So print to PDF. No reflow, nothing moves around in that. Or do thay actually require you to use Microsoft formats? That would be a whole can of worms even if everyone did use MS--versions, fonts, etc.
If you're going to attack Obama for not addressing your favorite issue
No, I did not. I said I don't believe he is going to do anything about it at all. Same as you did. The people who imagine he is just "waiting for the right time" are just fooling themselves.
and then we all attack him, fighting over our place in line....
So, everyone should get in line... behind who? You? Me? How the hell do issues get prioritised if no one advocates them? The president's job is to deal with those pressures. And Obama is savvy enough to be able to handle whatever mud gets flung. He got a lot worse during the campaign.
Different in detail, and I won't pretend to be authoritative on exactly how. However, under UK law, you certainly CAN quote passages of copyright text under some conditions, contrary to the post I was replying to.
At one stage it was actually cheaper to buy a return plane ticket from London to New York and buy CS3 there than to buy it in the UK.
I needed some business software in Hong Kong. I compared local prices with US dealers and saved about 50% by buying from the US and getting the box sent by parcel post. I got support, (not much needed) from the US, and updates online.
(Actually, I had a bootleg copy I'd used to check the software out, so no problem to wait a couple of weeks for shipping; I only really needed the licence, but it wouldn't have been polite to say that.)
Bollocks. It may not be called "fair use" but it exists.
Fact sheet P-01: UK Copyright Law 8 Acts that are allowed
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
Private and research study purposes.
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
Criticism and news reporting.
Incidental inclusion.
Copies and lending by librarians.
Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting".
Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.
There is also the problem of sites hotlinking images instead of storing them on their servers.
Advertisers don't trust sites to host their images (how would they know how many were really served), they want to serve them themselves, so they can rotate them when they want, so they can set web bugs and/or cookies.
The good news is that makes it a lot easier to block ads, if they were just images in the same locations as normal illustrative images, you'd have no way to discriminate. So once you block the advertisers' domains you have a nice fast page.
If you want marijuana legalized, you should be happy about that. Obama will be up for reelection, so if he pushes for that now, it will be the basis for a billion dollar smear campaign designed to make the public panic and vote for the Republican. And that could set back the cause quite a bit.
If he doesn't do anything, how is "the cause" advanced? You think he'll suddenly legalise pot in his second term?
Sure, his other policies make him the best choice, but on this one, he has no credibility.
If there were any logic, governments would simply exchange all the laws for tobacco and marijuana. Make marijuana legal but discouraged, treat tobacco like a poisonous narcotic.
Why don't we examine the content of his report before disregarding it based on his non-qualifications.
He is an ECONOMIST for fuck's sake. That IS relevant.
Regardless, Real Climate looked into this last week. Much detail there, finishing with: "So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."
The usual "climate skeptic" bollocks. He has nothing new.
Sort of like how an arms fair doesn't actually "sell arms", that's what the individual dealers do, and hey how were the organizers supposed to know that if they created the "Ukranian Arms Fair" and reserved lots of space that a bunch of weapon dealers would move in? Totally unreasonable to expect them to deal with that!
Stupid analogy. The arms dealers are paying a large amount of money to the fair for their space. There are only a few hundred of them (I guess, at most). TPB provides a FREE service (important as there is no contract between those ANONYMOUS people posting torrent info) and probably has hundreds of posts every minute.
Summary: Analogies prove nothing. Especially those that equate copying digital files with selling guns/terrorism/pedophilia/Muslim fundamentalism/drug dealing (and ALL those equations have been made.)
1 Recruit a child for a photo session. 2 Photoshop the head of the child on a similar child-like body of an adult. 3 Distribute the composite photo as a pornographic photo of a child. The child. For the illusion to be convincing you will of course have had to pose the boy or girl very carefully. You will have taken equal care in the selection and positioning of your adult model. It's a process that stinks of fraud and sexual abuse from start to finish. 4 Profit These are actions not thoughts.
And NONE of these "actions" took place. And FYI, the way you make one of these "fake porn" montages is to start with your celebrity face, look through the untold millions of LEGAL porn images online till you find a body and pose that seems compatible, and cut, paste and blend.
No contact involved.
Google for "celebrity fakes" and you'll find Results 1 - 10 of about 287,000 for "celebrity fakes" If you imagine that, for instance, Jessica Alba was "recruited for a photo session" and "posed carefully" for the anal sex montages of her you may find?
So if someone takes a picture of me out in public, are you saying that they can do anything they want with that photo of me without my consent?
Sure, though publishing it would be another matter. The poor bastard in this case DID NOT DISTRIBUTE THE MONTAGES. But I submit that in the privacy of your own home (or computer) you should be able to do whatever the hell you like with any image you have. Including blending it with (legal) porn and whacking off to it. (The original porn images were also legal; at least they didn't try to charge him with anything over them, and they seem to have thrown the book at him.)
There's images of real children (their faces). They were too young to give informed consent
So what? He didn't publish or distribute these pictures. The cops found them when they were doing a search of his home. Basically he was fantasising, privately. Only pixels were harmed. So no harm to the children's feelings or reputations (until the cops and prosecutors made them public, they did mention some teen star's name).
The process seems to be "This is disgusting, what can we charge him with?" Because the real offence, being creepy, is not actually a crime.
When you're dealing with hundreds of locally contracted service people and installers, not every one turns out to be a rocket scientist
Yeah. And again, this is caused by simply trying to do it at the lowest possible cost. I could, in 5 minutes, work out a simple cheap, effective way to do this. (Old PC with removable drive bays: erase, image with FreeDOS, DSL or whatever and show a boot screen. Stamp drive with "CLEANED" label.) If it's an important problem -- and it is, as the "cost effective" method demonstrably fails over and over, the lowest bidding contractor not having any incentive to give a shit about cleaning off another company's data -- it's worth working out a system. And "Smash with a hammer" is such a system, but in my view, an irresponsible one, not to the company, but to society.
Even though any remaining sensitive data would be public key encrypted, it's just not worth the risk.)
If you can crack public key encrypted data, contact the NSA and FSB, see how many million dollars you can get for the method.
if you're trying to achieve the same storage with four 100GB drives that you can do with a single terabyte drive...
Sure. But if all you want is one 100 GB drive, it's fine. (My laptops have 12 or 16 GB, and are half empty. My PC has 80 GB, one day I'll upgrade it, but am in no rush.)
People who buy used hardware know the limitations. And if you have old hardware, the only reasonable source for compatible parts is the used market. (IDE drives, old laptop RAM, Laserjet accessories....)
Not for everyone. Creating toxic waste by destroying a useful article may financially be the optimal choice, but it's objectionable on other grounds; morality, social responsibility. But apparently you don't think these matter.
And if a company can't work out how to be sure they erase a disk before they dispose of it, I submit they can't be trusted to do much at all. Obviously they also thought "everything boils down to cost" and chose the lowest cost option, some contractor who possibly even paid them to take away the disks while promising to erase them. That does not invalidate the whole idea of erasing and recycling the disks. It just shows you that focusing solely on "lowest cost" has risks.
And it has cost: you have turned a useful piece of hardware into electronic waste.
For all the waffle talked about using electronic microscopes, etc, to read a wiped drive, is irrelevant. This drive was not wiped. It was just unplugged and sold as-is.
I don't believe anyone has demonstrated being able to read data in any useful quantity (not just a few bytes here and there) from a wiped drive, even one simply overwritten with zeros in the most simple-minded fashion. All the articles I've seen cited about this are theoretical. Data recovery firms can recover data from formatting and some kinds of physical damage. Never heard one say they could recover wiped data.
Go ahead and claim that the NSA can. You and I will never know what they can do.
is the one that bitches about things not being perfectly tuned to his own, smaller environment.
So the world is "tuned to your own 'larger' environment" and anyone else has to to suck it up.
And guess what, we do, because we have to. Doesn't mean we have to like it, or wonder why Americans SELLING SOFTWARE TO OTHER COUNTRIES, can't be fucked to find out what the standards are.
because, I don't get really pissed off over that sort of thing.
Of course not, because it does what YOU want.
It's a shame you do - what a waste of life.
And you were the asshole who said "Well, maybe you should use properly licensed, regionalized software, instead of pirated warez based on stuff", so don't lecture me about being pissed off. Arrogant, ignorant jerks like you invite it.
You are missing the point, they are indeed pre-configured as such, but this configuration is not alterable.
If you're talking about light switches, it is (usually) easy to alter this. Takes a screwdriver and 1 minute. Manufacturers obviously like to sell the same product in all markets.
Why are you bitching about software made in another country, instead of bitching about the fact that nobody in your country can be bothered to make something superior,
Doesn't matter what superior software I suggested, the AMERICAN managers insisted it had to be Microsoft.
I can't turn the software world upside down, I can't affect IT policy on a corporate, let alone national level. I can however see how small thoughtless decisions made by insular assholes like yourself make my life UNNECESSARILY harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would more realistic computer graphics have a stronger effect than the highly realistic special effects used in splatter movies?
Sure, you will find some kooks who say "the gamez made me do it". They used to say that about EC comics, about Hitchcock movies. Loonies will have no problem finding something to trigger them. There's plenty of gore in the Bible, and a lot of nutters have been inspired by that to commit heinous crimes.
So print to PDF. No reflow, nothing moves around in that. Or do thay actually require you to use Microsoft formats? That would be a whole can of worms even if everyone did use MS--versions, fonts, etc.
No, I did not. I said I don't believe he is going to do anything about it at all. Same as you did. The people who imagine he is just "waiting for the right time" are just fooling themselves.
and then we all attack him, fighting over our place in line....
So, everyone should get in line... behind who? You? Me? How the hell do issues get prioritised if no one advocates them? The president's job is to deal with those pressures. And Obama is savvy enough to be able to handle whatever mud gets flung. He got a lot worse during the campaign.
I get pissy with you becasue you're acting like an asshole.
So, fuck you and adieu.
What makes you think he'll ever do that?
Different in detail, and I won't pretend to be authoritative on exactly how. However, under UK law, you certainly CAN quote passages of copyright text under some conditions, contrary to the post I was replying to.
Just fuck off.
I needed some business software in Hong Kong. I compared local prices with US dealers and saved about 50% by buying from the US and getting the box sent by parcel post. I got support, (not much needed) from the US, and updates online.
(Actually, I had a bootleg copy I'd used to check the software out, so no problem to wait a couple of weeks for shipping; I only really needed the licence, but it wouldn't have been polite to say that.)
Bollocks. It may not be called "fair use" but it exists.
Advertisers don't trust sites to host their images (how would they know how many were really served), they want to serve them themselves, so they can rotate them when they want, so they can set web bugs and/or cookies.
The good news is that makes it a lot easier to block ads, if they were just images in the same locations as normal illustrative images, you'd have no way to discriminate. So once you block the advertisers' domains you have a nice fast page.
If he doesn't do anything, how is "the cause" advanced? You think he'll suddenly legalise pot in his second term?
Sure, his other policies make him the best choice, but on this one, he has no credibility.
If there were any logic, governments would simply exchange all the laws for tobacco and marijuana. Make marijuana legal but discouraged, treat tobacco like a poisonous narcotic.
I did. FOAD troll.
No, they did not "ignore" it. They actually READ the fucking paper and debunked it in detail.
He is an ECONOMIST for fuck's sake. That IS relevant.
Regardless, Real Climate looked into this last week. Much detail there, finishing with: "So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."
The usual "climate skeptic" bollocks. He has nothing new.
Stupid analogy. The arms dealers are paying a large amount of money to the fair for their space. There are only a few hundred of them (I guess, at most). TPB provides a FREE service (important as there is no contract between those ANONYMOUS people posting torrent info) and probably has hundreds of posts every minute.
Summary: Analogies prove nothing. Especially those that equate copying digital files with selling guns/terrorism/pedophilia/Muslim fundamentalism/drug dealing (and ALL those equations have been made.)
1 Recruit a child for a photo session.
2 Photoshop the head of the child on a similar child-like body of an adult.
3 Distribute the composite photo as a pornographic photo of a child.
The child.
For the illusion to be convincing you will of course have had to pose the boy or girl very carefully.
You will have taken equal care in the selection and positioning of your adult model.
It's a process that stinks of fraud and sexual abuse from start to finish.
4 Profit
These are actions not thoughts.
And NONE of these "actions" took place.
And FYI, the way you make one of these "fake porn" montages is to start with your celebrity face, look through the untold millions of LEGAL porn images online till you find a body and pose that seems compatible, and cut, paste and blend.
No contact involved.
Google for "celebrity fakes" and you'll find
Results 1 - 10 of about 287,000 for "celebrity fakes"
If you imagine that, for instance, Jessica Alba was "recruited for a photo session" and "posed carefully" for the anal sex montages of her you may find?
The crime is THOUGHT not ACTION.
Sure, though publishing it would be another matter. The poor bastard in this case DID NOT DISTRIBUTE THE MONTAGES. But I submit that in the privacy of your own home (or computer) you should be able to do whatever the hell you like with any image you have. Including blending it with (legal) porn and whacking off to it. (The original porn images were also legal; at least they didn't try to charge him with anything over them, and they seem to have thrown the book at him.)
So what? He didn't publish or distribute these pictures. The cops found them when they were doing a search of his home. Basically he was fantasising, privately. Only pixels were harmed. So no harm to the children's feelings or reputations (until the cops and prosecutors made them public, they did mention some teen star's name).
The process seems to be "This is disgusting, what can we charge him with?" Because the real offence, being creepy, is not actually a crime.
Yeah. And again, this is caused by simply trying to do it at the lowest possible cost. I could, in 5 minutes, work out a simple cheap, effective way to do this. (Old PC with removable drive bays: erase, image with FreeDOS, DSL or whatever and show a boot screen. Stamp drive with "CLEANED" label.) If it's an important problem -- and it is, as the "cost effective" method demonstrably fails over and over, the lowest bidding contractor not having any incentive to give a shit about cleaning off another company's data -- it's worth working out a system. And "Smash with a hammer" is such a system, but in my view, an irresponsible one, not to the company, but to society.
Even though any remaining sensitive data would be public key encrypted, it's just not worth the risk.)
If you can crack public key encrypted data, contact the NSA and FSB, see how many million dollars you can get for the method.
if you're trying to achieve the same storage with four 100GB drives that you can do with a single terabyte drive...
Sure. But if all you want is one 100 GB drive, it's fine. (My laptops have 12 or 16 GB, and are half empty. My PC has 80 GB, one day I'll upgrade it, but am in no rush.)
People who buy used hardware know the limitations. And if you have old hardware, the only reasonable source for compatible parts is the used market. (IDE drives, old laptop RAM, Laserjet accessories....)
Not for everyone. Creating toxic waste by destroying a useful article may financially be the optimal choice, but it's objectionable on other grounds; morality, social responsibility. But apparently you don't think these matter.
And if a company can't work out how to be sure they erase a disk before they dispose of it, I submit they can't be trusted to do much at all. Obviously they also thought "everything boils down to cost" and chose the lowest cost option, some contractor who possibly even paid them to take away the disks while promising to erase them. That does not invalidate the whole idea of erasing and recycling the disks. It just shows you that focusing solely on "lowest cost" has risks.
And it has cost: you have turned a useful piece of hardware into electronic waste. For all the waffle talked about using electronic microscopes, etc, to read a wiped drive, is irrelevant. This drive was not wiped. It was just unplugged and sold as-is.
I don't believe anyone has demonstrated being able to read data in any useful quantity (not just a few bytes here and there) from a wiped drive, even one simply overwritten with zeros in the most simple-minded fashion. All the articles I've seen cited about this are theoretical. Data recovery firms can recover data from formatting and some kinds of physical damage. Never heard one say they could recover wiped data.
Go ahead and claim that the NSA can. You and I will never know what they can do.
So the world is "tuned to your own 'larger' environment" and anyone else has to to suck it up.
And guess what, we do, because we have to. Doesn't mean we have to like it, or wonder why Americans SELLING SOFTWARE TO OTHER COUNTRIES, can't be fucked to find out what the standards are.
because, I don't get really pissed off over that sort of thing.
Of course not, because it does what YOU want.
It's a shame you do - what a waste of life.
And you were the asshole who said "Well, maybe you should use properly licensed, regionalized software, instead of pirated warez based on stuff", so don't lecture me about being pissed off. Arrogant, ignorant jerks like you invite it.
If they have a 286, almost certainly yes, they will.
Though I doubt Sugar will run on a 286.
If you're talking about light switches, it is (usually) easy to alter this. Takes a screwdriver and 1 minute. Manufacturers obviously like to sell the same product in all markets.
Doesn't matter what superior software I suggested, the AMERICAN managers insisted it had to be Microsoft.
I can't turn the software world upside down, I can't affect IT policy on a corporate, let alone national level. I can however see how small thoughtless decisions made by insular assholes like yourself make my life UNNECESSARILY harder.