Rule by a repressive right wing government tends to, over time, erode the institutions(rule of law, votes that aren't farces, etc.) and demographics(a middle class, the educated, political activists) on which democratic governance largely depends.
It's not the fact that they place the clips out there, or even that they create a fake account to do so. It's their content, they can do what they want with it.
What bothers me is that these fake accounts are doing exactly what they don't want real, normal everyday users to do - posting their HD content out there for everybody to see. This tells real thirteen year old kids that its OK to do so - after all, this thirteen year old, "FakeusewrID", got away with it...
If you don't want people doing this, don't do it yourself.
Ah - think of Night Clubs, Car Races, random New York Streets. Just how loud do we have to make this "click"?
I'd suggest someone needs to give this some serious thought, but this is Congress...
Don't make me come out there and beat you with the sarcasm tag...
Kids these days. Can't recognize a smart ass when they come and slap them in the face.
Actually sounds a lot like the parties down here in Miami, except that those opposable thumbs are usually using a Blackbeyy or iPhone while swimming around and having orgies.
Not that I ever get invited to those parties, mind you. I'm usually at home, trying to build a Finite Improbablility Machine using a hot cup of tea.
If I used my personal email account in the course of working for my employer my employer has an intesest in knwoing what I have said. The information in that email may be vital to a product launch and may contain a lot of information that is the property of my employer.
If I were to leave my job, my employer would have an awfully strong case for getting access to my email to see what if anything there might be the company's.
This would seem to be no different to me. If a government employee uses their personal email account in the course of doing their job, then that email account becomes important to their employers.
Now, the method used to gain access to the email here is suspect, but I think it is the right result from the wrong method.
Is any parachute test really that complicated? I RTFA (really) and it doesn't sound so bad. Can someone explain why this is the most complicated one in 40 years?
Yea! I mean come on folks, this is a PARACHUTE test. It's not like it's rocket sci...
Oh. Wait. Never mind...
I'd have to guess that the disk drives will be the first things to go. The good news is that there are quite a few drive emulation alternatives out there at the moment. However, nothing beats the clickity clack of a 1541.
New 3.5 inch drives are available for the Commodores. Check out http://cmdrkey.com/
Based on my past C64 experience, the power supply overheats and the system shuts down. I was always trying to look for a power supply that didn't overheat. Sometimes putting a glass of ice water on top of it helped it not overheat.
protovision sells one, iirc
If I want a glass of ice water, I'll get one from my own fridge, dagnabbit, and not put money into the pockets of protovision!
Ah, yeah...
The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Check here and see for yourself.
It's pretty obvious to me we've got different definitions of "obvious" here.
To me something is obvious when it needs no further proof. The dog is wet; ice is cold; rainbows are in the sky; there are millions of different species on this planet.
The explanations for the obvious are what are not obvious to me. They require observation and reproducible results to verify they are our current "Best Theory". So, because it is not obvious to me that we got the plethora of species on this planet today from Natural Selection, it requires observation to make me believe it is the best theory.
To me, saying some theory is obviously wrong without any examination is a subjective decision, and subjectivity should have no place in science. Objective, rational observation should be what determines if a theory is more or less correct. Thus, I can't say that a theory is obviously wrong, but I can say that it is obvious that it does not explain what I observe. I just have to prove that first!
BTW, you don't see the JGG because he paints so fast it is not possible to see with the human eye...
You're confusing facts with theories. Facts can be verified, theories can't. To be more specific, facts are what we can observe; theories are what we use to explain those facts we observe.
If I can see a rainbow, that is a fact. Theory is what explains how that rainbow got there.
One theory might say that millions of tiny water droplets in the sky act like prisms and create a rainbow. Another theory might state that rainbows are painted on the sky by the Jolly Green Giant using a giant rainbow roller brush. After further observation and gathering of facts, one theory will fit the observations better than the other, but neither is obviously wrong.
Like I said, I am being a bit of a pedantic fool here. But you cannot state that a theory is wrong without showing how it is wrong. Conversely, a theory is never obviously correct; it has to explain the world around us better than any competing theory to be accepted as generally correct.
Your example is actually the perfect proof of this. Newton's Laws did the best job of explaining why we saw what we saw in the heavens. His explanation of gravity did a very good job of explaining the movement of the planets. But when we started getting more detailed measurements, his theory no longer provided the best explanation. Thus, when Einstein's theories of space/time came along, they provided a better explanation of the observed facts.
You can still use Newton's laws to calculate planetary orbits or a flight path for a spaceship. If his theories were obviously wrong, then they wouldn't provide answers usable in the real world. The theory isn't obviously wrong. It takes a lot of detailed observation to see that it doesn't provide the best explanation. Nothing obvious about it!
Check out the debate between the Steady State and the Big Bang theories. Which one was obviously wrong sixty years ago? And which one do most cosmologists say does the best job of explaining the universe today? But even now, you have some scientists that do not believe the Big Bang does the best job of explaining the universe, so something is not obvious to them...
If the answers were obvious, we wouldn't need science.
I'm just being a pedantic idiot here, but there is no such thing as a theory that is obviously wrong. There are only theories that do not fit well with observed conditions.
You can have any number of competing theories and none of them are obviously wrong. There will, however be those that best fit the majority of our observations and will be considered the best theory. Those that have a hard time time explaining observed conditions will not be accepted by the majority of scientists, but no theory is ever obviously wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, don't stop!! Poke him some more - this was fun watching - and besides, the popcorn is ready now...
Rule by a repressive right wing government tends to, over time, erode the institutions(rule of law, votes that aren't farces, etc.) and demographics(a middle class, the educated, political activists) on which democratic governance largely depends.
Somehow, that all sounds SO familiar...
There is absolutely no reason to be concerned - unless, of course, the sun eats a couple of Jupiter-sized bean burritos...
Bingo. It's the old "Do as I say, not as I do" shtick all over again.
If you don't want people doing this, don't do it yourself.
Ah - think of Night Clubs, Car Races, random New York Streets. Just how loud do we have to make this "click"? I'd suggest someone needs to give this some serious thought, but this is Congress...
Don't make me come out there and beat you with the sarcasm tag... Kids these days. Can't recognize a smart ass when they come and slap them in the face.
Actually sounds a lot like the parties down here in Miami, except that those opposable thumbs are usually using a Blackbeyy or iPhone while swimming around and having orgies.
Not that I ever get invited to those parties, mind you. I'm usually at home, trying to build a Finite Improbablility Machine using a hot cup of tea.
Where does the government get that three dollars you tell them to put into the fund by checking that box? Bake sales?
It's all tax money, brother, every dime of it. And that has to come from... what are they again? Oh, yea, TAXPAYERS.
If I were to leave my job, my employer would have an awfully strong case for getting access to my email to see what if anything there might be the company's.
This would seem to be no different to me. If a government employee uses their personal email account in the course of doing their job, then that email account becomes important to their employers.
Now, the method used to gain access to the email here is suspect, but I think it is the right result from the wrong method.
Is any parachute test really that complicated? I RTFA (really) and it doesn't sound so bad. Can someone explain why this is the most complicated one in 40 years?
Yea! I mean come on folks, this is a PARACHUTE test. It's not like it's rocket sci... Oh. Wait. Never mind...
I'd have to guess that the disk drives will be the first things to go. The good news is that there are quite a few drive emulation alternatives out there at the moment. However, nothing beats the clickity clack of a 1541.
New 3.5 inch drives are available for the Commodores. Check out http://cmdrkey.com/
Based on my past C64 experience, the power supply overheats and the system shuts down. I was always trying to look for a power supply that didn't overheat. Sometimes putting a glass of ice water on top of it helped it not overheat.
protovision sells one, iircIf I want a glass of ice water, I'll get one from my own fridge, dagnabbit, and not put money into the pockets of protovision!
You mean like my back yard, down here in the state that can't vote straight? Well, then yes, I have.
Ah, yeah... The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Check here and see for yourself.
To me something is obvious when it needs no further proof. The dog is wet; ice is cold; rainbows are in the sky; there are millions of different species on this planet.
The explanations for the obvious are what are not obvious to me. They require observation and reproducible results to verify they are our current "Best Theory". So, because it is not obvious to me that we got the plethora of species on this planet today from Natural Selection, it requires observation to make me believe it is the best theory.
To me, saying some theory is obviously wrong without any examination is a subjective decision, and subjectivity should have no place in science. Objective, rational observation should be what determines if a theory is more or less correct. Thus, I can't say that a theory is obviously wrong, but I can say that it is obvious that it does not explain what I observe. I just have to prove that first!
BTW, you don't see the JGG because he paints so fast it is not possible to see with the human eye...
If I can see a rainbow, that is a fact. Theory is what explains how that rainbow got there.
One theory might say that millions of tiny water droplets in the sky act like prisms and create a rainbow. Another theory might state that rainbows are painted on the sky by the Jolly Green Giant using a giant rainbow roller brush. After further observation and gathering of facts, one theory will fit the observations better than the other, but neither is obviously wrong.
Like I said, I am being a bit of a pedantic fool here. But you cannot state that a theory is wrong without showing how it is wrong. Conversely, a theory is never obviously correct; it has to explain the world around us better than any competing theory to be accepted as generally correct.
Your example is actually the perfect proof of this. Newton's Laws did the best job of explaining why we saw what we saw in the heavens. His explanation of gravity did a very good job of explaining the movement of the planets. But when we started getting more detailed measurements, his theory no longer provided the best explanation. Thus, when Einstein's theories of space/time came along, they provided a better explanation of the observed facts.
You can still use Newton's laws to calculate planetary orbits or a flight path for a spaceship. If his theories were obviously wrong, then they wouldn't provide answers usable in the real world. The theory isn't obviously wrong. It takes a lot of detailed observation to see that it doesn't provide the best explanation. Nothing obvious about it!
Check out the debate between the Steady State and the Big Bang theories. Which one was obviously wrong sixty years ago? And which one do most cosmologists say does the best job of explaining the universe today? But even now, you have some scientists that do not believe the Big Bang does the best job of explaining the universe, so something is not obvious to them...
If the answers were obvious, we wouldn't need science.
And the proof of that is in your post!
I'm just being a pedantic idiot here, but there is no such thing as a theory that is obviously wrong. There are only theories that do not fit well with observed conditions.
You can have any number of competing theories and none of them are obviously wrong. There will, however be those that best fit the majority of our observations and will be considered the best theory. Those that have a hard time time explaining observed conditions will not be accepted by the majority of scientists, but no theory is ever obviously wrong.
Isn't this patently obvious? How can one patent something so unoriginal? Besides, my in-laws are prime examples of prior art...
I'm not. Bring it on.
Now where did I put that copy of Return of the Jedi?
The guy that gets 1000000 items of spam per day is slashdotted?
Beware geeks bearing .GIFs
Speak for yourself! I'm marri... oh, wait. Never mind...
Uhm... Napster?
So much for the business model...