i don't know if you'd have to... because the typical largest block in a torrent is 4meg.. so if you have to init a new connection to the peer for transfer it may work already.
but it's probably only giving you that boost when you start from idle. so write an azureus plugin that batches your transfer starts appropriately.
Never did I say it did, perhaps you should worry about the straw man you constructed to accuse me of false dichotomy before you worry about any false dichotomy.
The person quoted when out of their way to add "under god" in reference to the country. "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were added in 1954 to offend the "Atheist soviets". Every time these days I hear someone go out of their way to add "Under God" to a description of the country that person has proven to be someone who doesn't respect the rights of atheists to religious freedom. They don't acknowledge that the constitution created the United States of America as a secular nation with religious freedom for all - freedom from having the government support any one religious position (including non-religious positions) and freedom from having the government interfere in their free exercise of religion (or non-religion). (So long as those exercises down infringe upon the rights of others - you cannot deprive a child of needed medical care because of your religion, you cannot cut up a little girls genitals because of your religion [though hypocritically we still allow it to be done to males for the same bogus "medical reason" that used to be cited to support FGM's validity.. with the same type of poor-quality bogus studies])
It's not his belief in the christian god that makes him a christian supremacist. It's his christian supremacist attitude that makes him a Christian Supremacist
"under god" was not part of the pledge originally, the origin author (a minister) considered adding it and felt it to be completely and totally inappropriate as america was not a christian nation, but a secular one. Congress added it in 1954 (same time that "in god we trust" was put on the money) to "offend the atheist soviets".
I have yet to meet anyone who makes a point of referencing "under god" who doesn't think they have a "god given right" (pun intended) to own the country and make it a theocracy.
His christian supremacist views invalidate his opinion, not his christian religiosity. If you cannot understand the difference between "christian supremacist" and "christian" then compare "white supremacist" and "white".
Perhaps if you overcome your kneejerk reaction long enough to actually read my statement you'd realize that your shrill accusations of bigotry and unfounded. I am merely reacting to something in his statement which every time i hear someone go out of their way like that to utter it has proven true that said person thinks that atheists don't have the right to be free from religious people making religious laws and interfering in their live with them.
The fact that the person you quoted doesn't even understand that this country is a secular nation by appropriate mandate of it's consitution - and instead acts like it's a theocracy in his statement - disqualifies his opinion from any validity. At that point he becomes a Christian Supremacist.
Then his quote gets nutty - In conclusive his a christofascist conspiracy theorist nutback.
Bollocks, you can only patent an implementation of the decoder, they're using ffmpeg not the reference implementation, and ffmpeg didn't read how to implement it off the patent.
No patent violation here no matter what the idiots at mpegla claim. (that's like saying there is a copyright violation because the RIAA says so).
Yeah, it's called warm behinds sitting in catholic church pews, people flocking (pun intended) to see him, etc
any reasonable person would consider the fact that people belief his crap to be self-evident from easily observable public gatherings related to Ratzinger of the Inquisition
No he doesn't have any expertise, no he doesn't have any degrees in sciences - yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science
because having little tolerance for absurd ideas and bigoted people is TOTALLY the same thing as having little tolerance for people living their life their own way.
the following two actions are SOOO the same 1) Tell someone they're not welcome because they're asinine bigoted ideas 2) Pass laws against someone, condemn them to hell,etc because they don't live by your rules and therefore are second class citizens
Common sense is anything but, and is also subjective. For some people, including the father of our current president (And probably our current president) it's only "Common sense" that I don't have any rights as an American because I'm an atheist.
Yet again you're putting words in my mouth and you're ignoring things I've said. Notice i said that there were other players of power, but the most likely one to gain control is the US in the void left by a lack of effective government is corporations. "Inidividual citizens exercising their rights of self government" - THAT'S GOVERNMENT. Some citizens may be willing, but they are not able, that is why citizens form governments - unrealistic expectations, and naive assumptions, get you no where.
I have an anti-bad-corporation bias, there are good corporations out there: you don't hear much about them because they go on day-by-day not bothering anyone. Anyone who doesn't recognize that bad corporations exist, and that since they're large entities there is a power disparity that government must step in and protect it's citizens from being abused by, is being intentionally blind. Government does exist to protect it's citizens: including against abusive corporations - it's a required for capitalism to function, and it's required by the very concept of government. Yes the founding fathers did seek to protect us from the abuses of government: things such as the government foisting religion on people, torturing people, spying on it's citizens. These are all real american values and yet in the current political climate they are held to be unamerican due to a disinformation campaign ran by certain radio and TV stations - yet another case in which the "free market" has harmed democracy: the government failed to live up to it's responsibility to protect it's citizens (from politically motivated disinformation for the sake of manipulation - Vice President Henry Wallace had a warning about that exact thing happening).
Libertarianism does have a few good ideas, however it's entire platform is those ideas taken to an unhealthy and untenable extreme. Making governemnt less intrusive and more efficient it is a good thing: however gutting the services it render to it's citizens such as police protection, roads, utilities, consumer protections, education [requisite for a functional democracy and economy], etc are not good. The libertarian platform does much more of the later. (I am not saying that government is doing those things to the best of it's abilities at the current time).
Our ancestorys have lived libertarianism, we don't need to live something ourselves to learn lessons from it - we have good historical documentation of the conditions and the consequences.
We don't have to live fascism to understand the problems with it, libertarianism is no different.
"You are painting a false dichotomy here. The choice isn't between idealistic libertarianism and extreme corporatism."
I stopped reading at that point, because anything you said after this was based upon false assumptions. I was not creating a dichotomy - i was dealing with cause and effect. The cause is libertarianism, the effect is a power vacuum. That power vacuum is then the cause of the rise of the power of corporations as they fill that power vacuum. IT is true that they are not the only party that could seize upon that power vacuum, but given the current state of the US and that we're talking about libertarianism in the US it is the most likely chain of events, and it is consistent with united states history.
the consequence of libertarianism, while getting government "out of your business", is that corporations are ALL OVER your business like white on rice.
In fact the consequence of libertarianism is that you are pretty much owned by the corporations.
Trendy (aka Naive and shortsighted) political positions such as libertarianism are not the answer.
We've lived libertarianism before, it's why we have a lot of the laws on the books we have (like 40 hour work week, no child labor, consumer product safety rules, etc).
We didn't need to hear about your personal pink-unicorns-farking-roses alternate reality - if you knew anything about REAL LIFE you'd know that shit stinks.
Not everyone wants to pay tivo $16/month - mythtv users can buy a YEARS worth of listings for $20 - plus i already have 4 tuners (3 analog, 1 qam256/atsc) and 500GB of harddrive
PS: Incase you didn't get it from my other post - my position rests on medical knowledge and human rights it has nothing to do with religion beyond the fact that the barbaric practice was started by religion (and religious thinking in the form of Virtue Medicine in english speaking countries).
If you want to do this to yourself, when you are an adult, to conform to your religion then fine - I have nothing to say on it it's your body. It is when you engage in enforcing the practice on non-consenting individuals (including, and especially, those incapable of consenting due to being minors).
Cosmetic Genital alteration of either gender for any reason, except immediate medical necessity, is abhorrent and criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't know if you'd have to... because the typical largest block in a torrent is 4meg.. so if you have to init a new connection to the peer for transfer it may work already.
but it's probably only giving you that boost when you start from idle. so write an azureus plugin that batches your transfer starts appropriately.
does the fact that you are unfamiliar with the concept of typing errors and that you posted anonymously....
too easy
Never did I say it did, perhaps you should worry about the straw man you constructed to accuse me of false dichotomy before you worry about any false dichotomy.
The person quoted when out of their way to add "under god" in reference to the country. "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were added in 1954 to offend the "Atheist soviets". Every time these days I hear someone go out of their way to add "Under God" to a description of the country that person has proven to be someone who doesn't respect the rights of atheists to religious freedom. They don't acknowledge that the constitution created the United States of America as a secular nation with religious freedom for all - freedom from having the government support any one religious position (including non-religious positions) and freedom from having the government interfere in their free exercise of religion (or non-religion). (So long as those exercises down infringe upon the rights of others - you cannot deprive a child of needed medical care because of your religion, you cannot cut up a little girls genitals because of your religion [though hypocritically we still allow it to be done to males for the same bogus "medical reason" that used to be cited to support FGM's validity.. with the same type of poor-quality bogus studies])
It's not his belief in the christian god that makes him a christian supremacist. It's his christian supremacist attitude that makes him a Christian Supremacist
"under god" was not part of the pledge originally, the origin author (a minister) considered adding it and felt it to be completely and totally inappropriate as america was not a christian nation, but a secular one. Congress added it in 1954 (same time that "in god we trust" was put on the money) to "offend the atheist soviets".
I have yet to meet anyone who makes a point of referencing "under god" who doesn't think they have a "god given right" (pun intended) to own the country and make it a theocracy.
His christian supremacist views invalidate his opinion, not his christian religiosity. If you cannot understand the difference between "christian supremacist" and "christian" then compare "white supremacist" and "white".
Perhaps if you overcome your kneejerk reaction long enough to actually read my statement you'd realize that your shrill accusations of bigotry and unfounded. I am merely reacting to something in his statement which every time i hear someone go out of their way like that to utter it has proven true that said person thinks that atheists don't have the right to be free from religious people making religious laws and interfering in their live with them.
erg.. nutbag even
The fact that the person you quoted doesn't even understand that this country is a secular nation by appropriate mandate of it's consitution - and instead acts like it's a theocracy in his statement - disqualifies his opinion from any validity. At that point he becomes a Christian Supremacist.
Then his quote gets nutty - In conclusive his a christofascist conspiracy theorist nutback.
they've been able to fairly reliably block mother->featus AIDS transmission for a while now
don't confuse current imaginary forms of patent with real patent.
Bollocks, you can only patent an implementation of the decoder, they're using ffmpeg not the reference implementation, and ffmpeg didn't read how to implement it off the patent.
No patent violation here no matter what the idiots at mpegla claim. (that's like saying there is a copyright violation because the RIAA says so).
Substantiate your claim with specific patents violated, and how, or retract your claim.
Yeah, it's called warm behinds sitting in catholic church pews, people flocking (pun intended) to see him, etc
any reasonable person would consider the fact that people belief his crap to be self-evident from easily observable public gatherings related to Ratzinger of the Inquisition
No he doesn't have any expertise, no he doesn't have any degrees in sciences - yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science
because having little tolerance for absurd ideas and bigoted people is TOTALLY the same thing as having little tolerance for people living their life their own way.
the following two actions are SOOO the same
1) Tell someone they're not welcome because they're asinine bigoted ideas
2) Pass laws against someone, condemn them to hell,etc because they don't live by your rules and therefore are second class citizens
Common sense is anything but, and is also subjective. For some people, including the father of our current president (And probably our current president) it's only "Common sense" that I don't have any rights as an American because I'm an atheist.
the problem with that is that plain simple language is also immensely inprecise.
yeah ... because the corporatist religio-supremacist government we have right now in america is really any better at all
Yet again you're putting words in my mouth and you're ignoring things I've said. Notice i said that there were other players of power, but the most likely one to gain control is the US in the void left by a lack of effective government is corporations. "Inidividual citizens exercising their rights of self government" - THAT'S GOVERNMENT. Some citizens may be willing, but they are not able, that is why citizens form governments - unrealistic expectations, and naive assumptions, get you no where.
I have an anti-bad-corporation bias, there are good corporations out there: you don't hear much about them because they go on day-by-day not bothering anyone. Anyone who doesn't recognize that bad corporations exist, and that since they're large entities there is a power disparity that government must step in and protect it's citizens from being abused by, is being intentionally blind. Government does exist to protect it's citizens: including against abusive corporations - it's a required for capitalism to function, and it's required by the very concept of government. Yes the founding fathers did seek to protect us from the abuses of government: things such as the government foisting religion on people, torturing people, spying on it's citizens. These are all real american values and yet in the current political climate they are held to be unamerican due to a disinformation campaign ran by certain radio and TV stations - yet another case in which the "free market" has harmed democracy: the government failed to live up to it's responsibility to protect it's citizens (from politically motivated disinformation for the sake of manipulation - Vice President Henry Wallace had a warning about that exact thing happening).
Libertarianism does have a few good ideas, however it's entire platform is those ideas taken to an unhealthy and untenable extreme. Making governemnt less intrusive and more efficient it is a good thing: however gutting the services it render to it's citizens such as police protection, roads, utilities, consumer protections, education [requisite for a functional democracy and economy], etc are not good. The libertarian platform does much more of the later. (I am not saying that government is doing those things to the best of it's abilities at the current time).
Our ancestorys have lived libertarianism, we don't need to live something ourselves to learn lessons from it - we have good historical documentation of the conditions and the consequences.
We don't have to live fascism to understand the problems with it, libertarianism is no different.
"You are painting a false dichotomy here. The choice isn't between idealistic libertarianism and extreme corporatism."
I stopped reading at that point, because anything you said after this was based upon false assumptions. I was not creating a dichotomy - i was dealing with cause and effect. The cause is libertarianism, the effect is a power vacuum. That power vacuum is then the cause of the rise of the power of corporations as they fill that power vacuum. IT is true that they are not the only party that could seize upon that power vacuum, but given the current state of the US and that we're talking about libertarianism in the US it is the most likely chain of events, and it is consistent with united states history.
the consequence of libertarianism, while getting government "out of your business", is that corporations are ALL OVER your business like white on rice.
In fact the consequence of libertarianism is that you are pretty much owned by the corporations.
Trendy (aka Naive and shortsighted) political positions such as libertarianism are not the answer.
We've lived libertarianism before, it's why we have a lot of the laws on the books we have (like 40 hour work week, no child labor, consumer product safety rules, etc).
We didn't need to hear about your personal pink-unicorns-farking-roses alternate reality - if you knew anything about REAL LIFE you'd know that shit stinks.
i think parent may have been making an attempt at sarcasm
Not everyone wants to pay tivo $16/month - mythtv users can buy a YEARS worth of listings for $20 - plus i already have 4 tuners (3 analog, 1 qam256/atsc) and 500GB of harddrive
of course you could bother to read the entire thread as someone else has already named the article for you.
PS: Incase you didn't get it from my other post - my position rests on medical knowledge and human rights it has nothing to do with religion beyond the fact that the barbaric practice was started by religion (and religious thinking in the form of Virtue Medicine in english speaking countries).
If you want to do this to yourself, when you are an adult, to conform to your religion then fine - I have nothing to say on it it's your body. It is when you engage in enforcing the practice on non-consenting individuals (including, and especially, those incapable of consenting due to being minors).
Cosmetic Genital alteration of either gender for any reason, except immediate medical necessity, is abhorrent and criminal.