but it did start with analogue, and with VCR+Macrovision. The real fact here is "digital" is only a red herring. It should be called "copyrighted Media Right Management" as in "our wet dream is to put a good lock on this and every time you want to watch it or put on another computer/player you have to pay again. And again. And again". If they could apply the same method to analogue with the same sucess that they had with DRM and macrovision , they would. Alas, it is not that easy without breaking legacy analogue equipement, and such they concentrate on the digital area.
Why do I say that ? Well remmember the Roman ? As far as I know death & blood were not faked. And somehow I doubt people were forced to watch, or stopped watching in disgust. Look at when there is an accident the number of passerby which comes and watch. Usually what slow down traffic is less the clown which have a look than the accident itself (especially true on 3 or 4 lanes freeway). The majority, if not all people, have this morbid streak to look at the misery of other and think "well at least that was not me". Make it real and people will not only be even more desenstivized to true violence, but they might even STARTS to enjoy it...
1) make any sort of "news alike" copyrighted content. Does not matter quality as long as there is quantity.
2) MAKE SURE that my robot.txt allow google.fr to index
3) wait
4) leave the content at the same place but put a password
5) sue google.fr for copyright infringement.
6) profit
Strange, I think I forgot the ?? step somewhere...
The PEAR group consistently obtained positive results for 30 years.
Where are they. I certainly find NO POSITIVE RESULT WHATSOEVER. Care to do a citation. Peer reviewed journal would be nice.
And if you check the parapsychological literature Ha. HA. Let me guess. Not peer reviewed. Not even remotely in the science citation index. Certainly does not look like it.
As for the rest of your drivel, if you had read the ORIGINAL paper from the PEAR team and what they admit you would not be adament on "positive" result. Here is the link already psoted by another psoter:Pear is a failure in all respect of statistical analisys
They simply retrofit the data after the fact. And once you retrofit data you can find ANY EVENT which match as long as your criteria is low enough. There is always some bad stuff going around. Especially that they aren't limited by event size, number of people, or geography !! This is again pseudo science at its best. You want to sway us ? Fine ! Set a level of population impacted, a geography limit, event size, then make bloody prediction. Else what you are doing is no better than taking a random bunch of data and finding correaltion between that data and other event. I bet with the same methodology I could take the price variation of potatoe per tons, take only the cent (fractional aprt) and find a corelation with major earth event. As long as I define event as above I am pretty sure any kind of shit can be retrofitted.
PEARS was defraught of bad method. Google around any good math blog or skeptic report and you will be able to read why. first link I found CSICOP Conclusion quoted:
In their book Margins of Reality Jahn and Dunne raise this question: "Is modern science, in the name of rigor and objectivity, arbitrarily excluding essential factors from its purview?" Although the question is couched in general terms, the intent is to raise the issue as to whether the claims of the parapsychological community are dismissed out of hand by mainstream science unjustifiably. This paper argues that in the light of the difficulties in replication (even by the PEAR group itself), the lack of anything approaching a theoretical basis for the claims made, and, perhaps most damaging, the published behavior of the baseline data of the PEAR group which by their own criteria indicate nonrandom behavior of the device that they claim is random, then the answer to the question raised has to be no. There are reasonable and rational grounds for questioning these claims. Despite the best efforts of the PEAR group over a twenty-five-year period, their impact on mainstream science has been negligible. The PEAR group might argue that this is due to the biased and blinkered mentality of mainstream scientists. I would argue that it is due to the lack of compelling evidence.
At best this was pseudo science. At worst they scammed private investor from money to study something inexistant (AFAIK this was not public found). They were fitting the data to the conclusion. They were begging for belief, but were quite empty handed on the falsification side. The quicker this shame can be closed, the better. Now if we could do the same for the other 999 pseudo science outfit outside here...
You have to make sure you separate material with toxic substance first. Like Chlore (some plastics), Heavy Metal etc... On an industrial level I am sure it is happening, but on the local level (house) I am sure this would not.
"That's a lotta chinks in the armor. And Crooks usually aren't that smart." Wrong. Caught crook aren't smart. Smart crook won't be caught because they will ask a specialist (for big money) to help them cover their vulnerabilities. And since the knowledge about forensic does not seem to be a secret you get shot by a firing squad if you reveal it, I am sure a lot of people knows about what you described. Alternatively wait 20 years when the current gen which is immersed in computer, vulnerabilities and stories of crook getting caught by such stuff , and the average crook will be aaware of the problem. Do not underestimate crook, they are as dumb or as intelligent as your average persons. And those not caught and certainly more than the average.
... where, if part of the contrat is illegal, then the whole contract is made null. In other word for all those country, making statement for example to make user sign up their basic right, or even consumer-protection right, is illegal, would simply nullify the EULA. So... The left over won't do shit in such case.
Firstly, as far as I can tell the PS2 were not stolen, were not copied with cheap tawainess ship, they were bought from Sony. So.... This revenue WOULD NOT HAVE existed at all without the piracy boom in Brazil.
What they lost is a POTENTIAL sale of game. If people pirate 20 games, buy 3, it is still 3 bought AND NOT 20 LOSS. If people were going in supermarket and hammering/stealing/crushing those 20 PS2 game this would be a loss. But what you describe isn't that. There has been NO REAL LOSS FOR SONY. Hammer that in your head. A copyright infringement is at best a POTENTIAL LOSS, but not a real. CAse in point, if everybody on earth was copying FFIX and sony would still have done the same sale in the past, then they would STILL BE WRITING THE SAME NUMBER AT THE END OF THEIR FISCAL Q.
I do not condone copyright infrigement, but NEITHER DO I CONDONE BAD RETHORIC ON "FANTASY LOSSES".
So pardon me if from my external point of view, the party of the rich and selfish is BOTH Democrate and Republican. Same brand of right/centrist, only different flavoring on minor issues.
ICBM, or even Balistic or even simple missile is one thing. A city buster transported by conventional means (hidden in a truck, in a wood crate, in a car, or in a plane or whatever does not look like a threat) is another. THAAD might be interresting for theater of operation, or even zone like israel where hezbollah terrorist use katuschia rocket daily (used to?), but a determined nation with nuclear capability, can certainly in an insane moment flatten any city in the world with a bit of time and a conventional method. HECK, the wood-crate with lead lining method has another big advantage : you can't easily trace back from where it came, on the contrary to a balistic missile. If you all US-ian quake in fear at NK nuke capability then instead of such anti balistic system, I would recommend searching through all goods coming in your seaport.
Creating a red light district would arguably make porn easier to find for children
Explain me with the advent of search engine, how is it difficult for any kids to :
* type in www.google.com
* enter free porn image (or free porn video)
* clicks on "I am 18 and want to see the preview video"
I am sorry, but that argument do not hold any shred of water. Unless you are speaking of mentally disabled children, if they want to search for porn, they will find it whether it is a.xxx,.net,.org,.com or.fucktit domain name. NOTHING which can be found a few click away today cannot be found by anybody older than 8.
Now for the rest of your argument, I agree you can't force the rest of the world onto it. You could try to force sales of subscription in the US for porn to only comes from.xxx web site but that would not hold water I guess if people pay directly to oversea account, a bit like the gambling casino stuff.
The biggest advantage for the porn industry is that afterward everybody typing in the address of the link or clickijng a link ending with.xxx KNOWS what he/she wants and thus can be blamed itself for what he tried to see. Whereas with the situation now, the porn industry TAKES the blame if anybody (adult or infant does not matter) accidentaly type in/click a.COM address which does show porn image. By having.xxx everyone wins : all parents or sensible person which can simply then block all.xxx domain, the porn industry because then nobody can anymore talk about being "accidentally" there. The ONLY loss for the porn industry is that then every consenting adult lose any excuse to have browsed on porn domain by accident since with.xxx it willl be obvious that you are on a porn page. ? "ho honey, no I just wanted to learn more about how to solve multiple-body physics interraction and I accidentally clicked onn that porn link" won't hold water if all link end with.xxx
Do you realize that in the probability that an nuclear exchange occurs between two nuclear nation, then both will either go totally out (aka carpet bomb with nuclear bomb) to avoid nuclear a riposte , or not do any nuclear bombing at all to begin with ? There is a good reason why MAD means Mutual Assured Destruction. Currently the capacity is to destroy each other (Russia/US) many time over. Instead of being able to destroy 3.5 time over, how about destroy only 3.3 time over ? Especially if the old bomb are so unreliable. I am sorry but you swallowed too much cold war rethoric.
In my department we are making out 98% of the female IT population of Germany. I work for a IT system (mainframe) for airline RES (reservation),TKT (ticketing), WAB (weight and balance) and CKI (check-in) systems and we have a proportion of 2 male for 12 female in my department. I am the only male developer out of the 5. But the bottom line is that all of those started in the airline industry and only later went in development. We have *NO* persons which studied IT. We have mathematics, Physics, Philosophy, Religion (!), Biology, Business administration, Nurse, Smith(metal worker) formaly educated people but nobody which come from pure IT.
Slash 0.5% of the defense budget (for example cut it on nuclear weapon research or capability) and give it to the Nasa Budget. I recon that would be a nice nifty increase for the Nasa budget while not really a loss for the defense capability of the US (seeing that it has a budget which is roughly on the order of half of the world spending on military if you are to believe wiki).
quote : Native speakers automatically speak perfectly correct English, since correct English is determined by how native speakers speak.
Correct language (english/french/german) is determined not by academic, but by how the average native speaker speaks that language. Note the accent on average: it is important. This means that some below and above average will not speak the "native language". I cannot give example in english but in my native language (translated in english) the correct way to speak is "which is what I mean" whereas a minority says "that is that I mean". Obviously since the majority use the correct form, then the minority native speaker using the second form are in error, on the contrary to the opinion you support.
Language *HAS TO* mold itself for the majority of people in some sort of average understood by said majority. It is after all an instrument of communication, and if everybody speaks its own idiom, then it lost completly its purpose as communication tool. Now what I won't argue against, is that "that average" language evolve with time, sometimes yes toward simplification against "artificial proscriptivist norms".
This is not meant as a flame bait but the simple truth : this is the same reason tehre is a political section with an US flag, but there isn't a political section with, let us say a switzerland flag. Or a Korean flag. Or a canadian one. See my drift ? So now having agreed that slashdot is US centric, think of this trivia : what are the last 3 countries to use as standard unit the imperial unit ? Ding-Dong. Since they have pound as standard unit they converted the unit from kg to pound for the majority of their readership : the US (*)
(*) I am assuming this is the majority. If the US in the mean time has become a minority readership, one could question the legitimency of an US centric news.
[b]quote[/b] : I usually use feet if I'm estimating a distance (it's just a very convienient size - the closest metric equivalent is a decimeter, just doesn't quite cut it)
Firstly the real equivalent is not the decimeter it is the metter. Why ? because for 3 feet you have one meter. You usually do not say somebody is 17 decimeter tall, you say they are 1 meter 70.
Now imagine I am trying to compare somebody with 5 feet 10 inch, with somebody 6 feet 1 inch. You have to THINK how many inch there is in a foot first. Whereas if I say one was 1m75 and one was 1m85.... You do not have to think duie to the simple 1/100 division.
You could argue that this is a question of habits, but then imagine I tell you the following : "the distance measured between point A and B was five time 5 feet 10 inch, 6 times 4 feet 9 inch" you have to do conversion feet/inch. at the same time if I say "5 times 1m35 and 4 times 1m70" then this is just direct addition and division you can simply do. There is no metter / mm conversion because 1000mm=1m. You do not need to have an intern 12 inch=1 feet (or whatever the conversion is, I do not really care).
Slashdot Mirror
I could not make it work under such system either. Maybe it needs more ? Something which is not enabled on my firefox ?
but it did start with analogue, and with VCR+Macrovision. The real fact here is "digital" is only a red herring. It should be called "copyrighted Media Right Management" as in "our wet dream is to put a good lock on this and every time you want to watch it or put on another computer/player you have to pay again. And again. And again". If they could apply the same method to analogue with the same sucess that they had with DRM and macrovision , they would. Alas, it is not that easy without breaking legacy analogue equipement, and such they concentrate on the digital area.
Why do I say that ? Well remmember the Roman ? As far as I know death & blood were not faked. And somehow I doubt people were forced to watch, or stopped watching in disgust. Look at when there is an accident the number of passerby which comes and watch. Usually what slow down traffic is less the clown which have a look than the accident itself (especially true on 3 or 4 lanes freeway). The majority, if not all people, have this morbid streak to look at the misery of other and think "well at least that was not me". Make it real and people will not only be even more desenstivized to true violence, but they might even STARTS to enjoy it...
1) make any sort of "news alike" copyrighted content. Does not matter quality as long as there is quantity.
2) MAKE SURE that my robot.txt allow google.fr to index
3) wait
4) leave the content at the same place but put a password
5) sue google.fr for copyright infringement.
6) profit
Strange, I think I forgot the ?? step somewhere...
The PEAR group consistently obtained positive results for 30 years.
:Pear is a failure in all respect of statistical analisys
Where are they. I certainly find NO POSITIVE RESULT WHATSOEVER. Care to do a citation. Peer reviewed journal would be nice.
And if you check the parapsychological literature Ha. HA. Let me guess. Not peer reviewed. Not even remotely in the science citation index. Certainly does not look like it.
As for the rest of your drivel, if you had read the ORIGINAL paper from the PEAR team and what they admit you would not be adament on "positive" result. Here is the link already psoted by another psoter
They simply retrofit the data after the fact. And once you retrofit data you can find ANY EVENT which match as long as your criteria is low enough. There is always some bad stuff going around. Especially that they aren't limited by event size, number of people, or geography !! This is again pseudo science at its best. You want to sway us ? Fine ! Set a level of population impacted, a geography limit, event size, then make bloody prediction. Else what you are doing is no better than taking a random bunch of data and finding correaltion between that data and other event. I bet with the same methodology I could take the price variation of potatoe per tons, take only the cent (fractional aprt) and find a corelation with major earth event. As long as I define event as above I am pretty sure any kind of shit can be retrofitted.
PEARS was defraught of bad method. Google around any good math blog or skeptic report and you will be able to read why. first link I found CSICOP
Conclusion quoted:
In their book Margins of Reality Jahn and Dunne raise this question: "Is modern science, in the name of rigor and objectivity, arbitrarily excluding essential factors from its purview?" Although the question is couched in general terms, the intent is to raise the issue as to whether the claims of the parapsychological community are dismissed out of hand by mainstream science unjustifiably. This paper argues that in the light of the difficulties in replication (even by the PEAR group itself), the lack of anything approaching a theoretical basis for the claims made, and, perhaps most damaging, the published behavior of the baseline data of the PEAR group which by their own criteria indicate nonrandom behavior of the device that they claim is random, then the answer to the question raised has to be no. There are reasonable and rational grounds for questioning these claims. Despite the best efforts of the PEAR group over a twenty-five-year period, their impact on mainstream science has been negligible. The PEAR group might argue that this is due to the biased and blinkered mentality of mainstream scientists. I would argue that it is due to the lack of compelling evidence.
At best this was pseudo science. At worst they scammed private investor from money to study something inexistant (AFAIK this was not public found). They were fitting the data to the conclusion. They were begging for belief, but were quite empty handed on the falsification side. The quicker this shame can be closed, the better. Now if we could do the same for the other 999 pseudo science outfit outside here...
I think we all agree there are paterns & structure in the DNA. The point was "half close the eye to see structure".
Seeing structure where there isn't any Quote :
Strange structures (close your eyes just a little bit to see more details)
You have to make sure you separate material with toxic substance first. Like Chlore (some plastics), Heavy Metal etc... On an industrial level I am sure it is happening, but on the local level (house) I am sure this would not.
"That's a lotta chinks in the armor. And Crooks usually aren't that smart." Wrong. Caught crook aren't smart. Smart crook won't be caught because they will ask a specialist (for big money) to help them cover their vulnerabilities. And since the knowledge about forensic does not seem to be a secret you get shot by a firing squad if you reveal it, I am sure a lot of people knows about what you described. Alternatively wait 20 years when the current gen which is immersed in computer, vulnerabilities and stories of crook getting caught by such stuff , and the average crook will be aaware of the problem. Do not underestimate crook, they are as dumb or as intelligent as your average persons. And those not caught and certainly more than the average.
... where, if part of the contrat is illegal, then the whole contract is made null. In other word for all those country, making statement for example to make user sign up their basic right, or even consumer-protection right, is illegal, would simply nullify the EULA. So... The left over won't do shit in such case.
The moon is a harsh mistress. If we go up there we might not be able to come here back down :p.
Firstly, as far as I can tell the PS2 were not stolen, were not copied with cheap tawainess ship, they were bought from Sony. So.... This revenue WOULD NOT HAVE existed at all without the piracy boom in Brazil.
What they lost is a POTENTIAL sale of game. If people pirate 20 games, buy 3, it is still 3 bought AND NOT 20 LOSS. If people were going in supermarket and hammering/stealing/crushing those 20 PS2 game this would be a loss. But what you describe isn't that. There has been NO REAL LOSS FOR SONY. Hammer that in your head. A copyright infringement is at best a POTENTIAL LOSS, but not a real. CAse in point, if everybody on earth was copying FFIX and sony would still have done the same sale in the past, then they would STILL BE WRITING THE SAME NUMBER AT THE END OF THEIR FISCAL Q.
I do not condone copyright infrigement, but NEITHER DO I CONDONE BAD RETHORIC ON "FANTASY LOSSES".
So pardon me if from my external point of view, the party of the rich and selfish is BOTH Democrate and Republican. Same brand of right/centrist, only different flavoring on minor issues.
ICBM, or even Balistic or even simple missile is one thing. A city buster transported by conventional means (hidden in a truck, in a wood crate, in a car, or in a plane or whatever does not look like a threat) is another. THAAD might be interresting for theater of operation, or even zone like israel where hezbollah terrorist use katuschia rocket daily (used to?), but a determined nation with nuclear capability, can certainly in an insane moment flatten any city in the world with a bit of time and a conventional method. HECK, the wood-crate with lead lining method has another big advantage : you can't easily trace back from where it came, on the contrary to a balistic missile. If you all US-ian quake in fear at NK nuke capability then instead of such anti balistic system, I would recommend searching through all goods coming in your seaport.
Creating a red light district would arguably make porn easier to find for children
.xxx,.net,.org, .com or .fucktit domain name. NOTHING which can be found a few click away today cannot be found by anybody older than 8.
.xxx web site but that would not hold water I guess if people pay directly to oversea account, a bit like the gambling casino stuff.
Explain me with the advent of search engine, how is it difficult for any kids to :
* type in www.google.com
* enter free porn image (or free porn video)
* clicks on "I am 18 and want to see the preview video"
I am sorry, but that argument do not hold any shred of water. Unless you are speaking of mentally disabled children, if they want to search for porn, they will find it whether it is a
Now for the rest of your argument, I agree you can't force the rest of the world onto it. You could try to force sales of subscription in the US for porn to only comes from
The biggest advantage for the porn industry is that afterward everybody typing in the address of the link or clickijng a link ending with .xxx KNOWS what he/she wants and thus can be blamed itself for what he tried to see. Whereas with the situation now, the porn industry TAKES the blame if anybody (adult or infant does not matter) accidentaly type in/click a .COM address which does show porn image. By having .xxx everyone wins : all parents or sensible person which can simply then block all .xxx domain, the porn industry because then nobody can anymore talk about being "accidentally" there. The ONLY loss for the porn industry is that then every consenting adult lose any excuse to have browsed on porn domain by accident since with .xxx it willl be obvious that you are on a porn page. ? "ho honey, no I just wanted to learn more about how to solve multiple-body physics interraction and I accidentally clicked onn that porn link" won't hold water if all link end with .xxx
DCA
Look also at the following link in variosu treatment.
Please do not mod up at all. I assume everybody will look in google anyway. Hopefully
I did not find what I was searching : negative effect DL50 or DL90...
Do you realize that in the probability that an nuclear exchange occurs between two nuclear nation, then both will either go totally out (aka carpet bomb with nuclear bomb) to avoid nuclear a riposte , or not do any nuclear bombing at all to begin with ? There is a good reason why MAD means Mutual Assured Destruction. Currently the capacity is to destroy each other (Russia/US) many time over. Instead of being able to destroy 3.5 time over, how about destroy only 3.3 time over ? Especially if the old bomb are so unreliable. I am sorry but you swallowed too much cold war rethoric.
In my department we are making out 98% of the female IT population of Germany. I work for a IT system (mainframe) for airline RES (reservation),TKT (ticketing), WAB (weight and balance) and CKI (check-in) systems and we have a proportion of 2 male for 12 female in my department. I am the only male developer out of the 5. But the bottom line is that all of those started in the airline industry and only later went in development. We have *NO* persons which studied IT. We have mathematics, Physics, Philosophy, Religion (!), Biology, Business administration, Nurse, Smith(metal worker) formaly educated people but nobody which come from pure IT.
Slash 0.5% of the defense budget (for example cut it on nuclear weapon research or capability) and give it to the Nasa Budget. I recon that would be a nice nifty increase for the Nasa budget while not really a loss for the defense capability of the US (seeing that it has a budget which is roughly on the order of half of the world spending on military if you are to believe wiki).
quote : Native speakers automatically speak perfectly correct English, since correct English is determined by how native speakers speak.
Correct language (english/french/german) is determined not by academic, but by how the average native speaker speaks that language. Note the accent on average: it is important. This means that some below and above average will not speak the "native language". I cannot give example in english but in my native language (translated in english) the correct way to speak is "which is what I mean" whereas a minority says "that is that I mean". Obviously since the majority use the correct form, then the minority native speaker using the second form are in error, on the contrary to the opinion you support.
Language *HAS TO* mold itself for the majority of people in some sort of average understood by said majority. It is after all an instrument of communication, and if everybody speaks its own idiom, then it lost completly its purpose as communication tool. Now what I won't argue against, is that "that average" language evolve with time, sometimes yes toward simplification against "artificial proscriptivist norms".
This is not meant as a flame bait but the simple truth : this is the same reason tehre is a political section with an US flag, but there isn't a political section with, let us say a switzerland flag. Or a Korean flag. Or a canadian one. See my drift ? So now having agreed that slashdot is US centric, think of this trivia : what are the last 3 countries to use as standard unit the imperial unit ? Ding-Dong. Since they have pound as standard unit they converted the unit from kg to pound for the majority of their readership : the US (*)
(*) I am assuming this is the majority. If the US in the mean time has become a minority readership, one could question the legitimency of an US centric news.
[b]quote[/b] : I usually use feet if I'm estimating a distance (it's just a very convienient size - the closest metric equivalent is a decimeter, just doesn't quite cut it)
Firstly the real equivalent is not the decimeter it is the metter. Why ? because for 3 feet you have one meter. You usually do not say somebody is 17 decimeter tall, you say they are 1 meter 70.
Now imagine I am trying to compare somebody with 5 feet 10 inch, with somebody 6 feet 1 inch. You have to THINK how many inch there is in a foot first. Whereas if I say one was 1m75 and one was 1m85.... You do not have to think duie to the simple 1/100 division. You could argue that this is a question of habits, but then imagine I tell you the following : "the distance measured between point A and B was five time 5 feet 10 inch, 6 times 4 feet 9 inch" you have to do conversion feet/inch. at the same time if I say "5 times 1m35 and 4 times 1m70" then this is just direct addition and division you can simply do. There is no metter / mm conversion because 1000mm=1m. You do not need to have an intern 12 inch=1 feet (or whatever the conversion is, I do not really care).