Great work mods. A guy makes a remark that's off-topic and gets modded as insightful. I make a direct response to that person's comment, and am modded off-topic.
I suspect the brainless libertarians aren't out golfing this saturday.
And yet they're STILL not screening the cargo that goes on the same flights. They'll look in everyones shoes for a bomb, but not in the fucking CRATES.
I've wondered. Suppose they actually managed to come up with workable DRM. Then suppose some person with megabucks buys one copy each of many songs or CDs, and opens an online music library - you "borrow" the song for a set period of time after which the file expires. It's only available to be "borrowed" by one person at a time, or anyway each paid copy is. When your copy expires, it becomes available on the site for someone else to "borrow."
Just how do you think the RIAA would react to THAT?
You do realize, don't you, that without government regulation and interference in the telecommunications industry, the net as we know it would not exist?
It's only because of government's action against AT&T that started with the Carterphone case, continued with Sprint and culminated in the breakup of AT&T that we have the web.
I can explain further if none of this rings a bell. (no pun intended.)
"However at no time is the sharing of material, which has a copyright notice on it clearly denying you permission to share, legal."
Not necessarily. Think two people who each own the CD sharing a ripped copy because one is too stupid to rip their own and wants it on their ipod. Obviously I'm stretching things and that's not what's going on with P2P, but still, its theoretically possible for sharing to not violate copyright.
"At the other extreme you have evolution as an explanation for the origin of life on the earth"
Wrong. The theory of evolution makes no attempt whatsoever to be an explanation for the origin of life on earth. It makes no claims to be. It only concerns itself with the changes in life once it arose. Theories and hypotheses about the ORIGIN of life come under the term abiogenesis. Theories of abiogenesis. Not evolution.
Gosh, you sure seem angry. So angry that you claim I've said things that I haven't. When did I say I'm entitled to free psych care?
You also are angry enough to see reality. 6 year old kids get upset. They get scared. They cry. They need to be talked to in a calming way. Since they are at school several hours of the day, its likely to happen sometimes there. We can have the school handle it, or just toss the kid out of the room, or let him sit there crying and not getting educated. People are not robots, especially children. Schools have to deal with children's psychological issues, that's just a fact of life.
I'm also not quite sure why you differentiate between school and counseling, or anything else for that matter. We give children free education, why not free psych care? Its not a matter of entitlement, its a matter of what we as a humane society feel is on the best interests of society. Why is career counseling at schools OK? Your kids got their free education, isn't it up to you as a parent to steer their life?
Some families can't afford psychiatric care for their children. Should a child's entire future be risked because they need help at a young age dealing with the death of a family member, and the family can't afford that help... thus screwing up the kid's schooling and other things? not to mention that the death of a child's parent might very well cause financial difficulties for that family? We provide free school lunches for kids whose families can't afford it. That's not education. Do you feel robbed by that practice too?
Human beings are social animals and we have built our society in great part through communal efforts. We are NOT rugged individualists who rely only on ourselves. We rely on each other. There's a strange attitude out there among some who seem to think that our natural state is as solitary creatures fending for ourselves. Who actually think that society was built by people pursuing their own selfish interests. This denies our basic humanity.
Why should the taxpayers pay for a military - isn't it your responsibility to protect yourself and your family? Why should the taxpayers pay for anything?
I do not own a car. I have never owned one, and will never own one. I have never driven. I have always used public transportation... which is much more efficient... and would be even more efficient and cheaper if it was used by all instead of the billions we use to subsidize roads, oil, etc. Why am I paying for you to be able to drive a car around? We fund these things because as a society we feel its in the best interest of all of us. If we also think its in the best interest of all of us to provide counseling for kids at school, we'll do that.
Avarice not only takes the form of greed, it takes the form of stinginess. Concern that someone, somewhere is getting a free ride at your expense. Some of these people want to opt out of society. I say we let them.
Well, certainly I did that in some cases, but that was definitely not the case here. I was so malnourished they thought I was on drugs, and I told them flat out I was not fed (though I didnt fill thim in on everything else).
They even called my mother in and scolded her for not feeding me... which is the last I heard of it. They later strongly suggested I change schools... this was an honors school and I was ruining their record.
Well, my nieces' dad is dying of cancer, and my youngest ones (6 and 8) sometimes get sad and anxious at school, and their guidance counselor has been great, letting them come and talk and feel safe during school, and she's always asking to be kept up on how things are going with my bro-in-law so she knows what the girls are going through.
Exactly. Which is the problem. It doesn't start in 9th grade, it starts in KINDERGARTEN. These kids' educations are channeled into very narrow areas from their first days in school.
When I was 15 in the early 80s, a school guidance counselor was told to talk to me. Having been abandoned by my family, abused, molested, malnourished, etc... school was the least of my worries as I tried to survive and find food. Obviously my attendance suffered.
The counselor (a woman) proceeded to tell me I had better decide right away what I was going to do with my life, what my career would be. "How do you expect to support a wife and family?" she asked pointedly.
That just further reinforced my impression at the time that at best adults were clueless idiots, and at worst dangerous.
I have 4 nieces in schools in Florida. They have the FCATs here, and everything is based around schools ratings with those tests. It's been ridiculous, the kids' educations in broad areas being sacrificed to "teaching to the test."
The obsession with the FCATs is insane. Everything in the schools revolves around them. Some administrators in one school even "anointed" kids' desks before the test with holy oil, hoping for higher scores.
I see this as just another attempt to do that - all of the "majors" will certainly be things the FCATs focus on. This is just another way to raise artificial indicators of the success of the schools at the expense of a real education.
Naw its pretty boring. It was a spare drive not in my machine. I wanted to grab some data off it fast, so I hooked it up to one of those external IDE cables that let you use the drive externally WITHOUT an external enclosure. Since I just wanted one file I guess I didn't bother to screw in the cable screws either.
It was sitting on the table, I walked by and in my Meniere's-induced instability tripped over the dangling cable. The drive was yanked off the table and shot right off the end of the cable.
I hear all of these stories of people having drives go bad, I don't understand it. I've owned hard drives since about 1981, I've gone through dozens, replacing them as they become obsolete and too small, and I have yet to have one fail on me - except the one I accidentally launched across a room. And even that one I managed to get most of the data off of.
What are people doing with drives to make them fail?
No, I didnt imply that sand has a perspective. The article argues that the end of human life would be a tragedy for the UNIVERSE. Its arguing that the universe has a perspective. I'm simply saying that from the perspective of the universe (which has no perspective), a human being and a grain of sand have equal value. Our sentience makes no difference to the universe, because nothing makes a difference to the universe. It only makes a difference to US.
Well of course you're right... but my task was not to come up with a idea for committing a terrorist act. It was simply to come up with a solution to prove that being made to take your shoes off in airports is utter bullshit. Which I successfully did. In fact, YOUR argument, which I agree with, ALSO proves that taking off your shoes in airports is bullshit.
FIVE guys with knives would have about the same effect as five guys with guns. They would kill some passengers before being overtaken. The only difference is that guys with guns might kill a few more. But nobody is going to be flying planes into buildings. Not again.
It would be a tragedy for the universe? What the FUCK? There are billions of stars in the galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. And the universe doesn't have a consciousness...
Go to a beach and pick of a grain of sand, and that single grain is a more important part of that beach that this planet is of the universe...
And a few little animated molecules on an insignificant speck are somehow so important?
There are possibly millions of other sentient species in the universe. Who's to say we're the most interesting? And who's to say our species is more interesting and unique than, say Tyrannosaurus Rex was?
From the perspective of US, of course we're important. From the perspective of ants, ants are more important. From the perspective of the entire universe, there IS no perspective of the entire universe, it doesn't fucking have one. If we cease to exist, or rather WHEN we cease to exist, it's just another wiggle in the vibrations of the stuff of the universe.
That's not to say the extinction of humans wouldnt be a tragedy, but get over your inability to see past your own perspective and realize that the tragedy would be for US and us alone. It would be a tragedy for humans. It would not be a tragedy for anyone or anything else. For most things, it wouldn't be noticed. For some things, it would be a boon - opening up new niches for life to spread into. Things would replace all the megafauna we've hunted to extinction. To an outside observer, the earth might even look nicer - with a more diverse ecosystem. Unless the outside observer is a car nut.
Actually, no. I never read that. the idea of fucking OBVIOUS. That's my point - you don't have to be brilliant, or have to have read the right thing to come up with simple ways to get past screening. I didn't have to read a book where some brilliant person came up with the idea, I just had to know two things: 1. there are glass knives. 2. metal detectors don't detect glass.
Exactly. It's a total scam, especially since they STILL aren't screening cargo that often goes on the VERY SAME FLIGHTS.
Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.
Meanwhile, none of these measures would find a glass or obsidian (sharper than a razor) knife strapped to your leg. Which is just one thing I thought of off hand. I sure hope all terrorists are idiots. I just don't think they are.
The only problem is, ad inserts are normally produced months ahead of schedule. I know, I used to work in the newspaper industry. Of course, there can be rush jobs... But anyway, while people in advertising agencies may perhaps be required to sign non-disclosure documents or have it otherwise spelled out in their contract, that is NOT the case for most people running printing presses, or the guys that wrap the cling wrap around the stacks of flyers on the pallets... Or the guys who forklift the pallets onto the truck to be shipped to the newspapers 2 or more weeks before they are to run.
So if one of these peons gets their hands on the info, and is not reproducing it and thus breaking copyright, is there any legal restriction from THEM saying "hey! I just found out that XXXX will be on sale in two weeks!!!"
The viewers are not their customers. The advertisers are their customers. The viewers are their PRODUCT. (The shows are the bait.) but your point still stands... the listings should be provided free, it would be good business. Breadcrumbs leading to the bait, etc.
But that's the point. The media industry HATES fair use, always has. They tried to make it illegal in the late 70's and got their asses handed to them in the courts. So they found a way to eliminate fair use by making an end run around it. They found a way to make it illegal to create the backup that you can legally own.
The neocons themselves invented it. Irving Kristol, cofounder of Encounter and its editor from 1953 to 1958, Norman Podhoretz, and others described themselves as "neoconservatives" during the Cold War.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the brainless libertarians aren't out golfing this saturday.
And yet they're STILL not screening the cargo that goes on the same flights. They'll look in everyones shoes for a bomb, but not in the fucking CRATES.
Just how do you think the RIAA would react to THAT?
It's only because of government's action against AT&T that started with the Carterphone case, continued with Sprint and culminated in the breakup of AT&T that we have the web.
I can explain further if none of this rings a bell. (no pun intended.)
"However at no time is the sharing of material, which has a copyright notice on it clearly denying you permission to share, legal." Not necessarily. Think two people who each own the CD sharing a ripped copy because one is too stupid to rip their own and wants it on their ipod. Obviously I'm stretching things and that's not what's going on with P2P, but still, its theoretically possible for sharing to not violate copyright.
Wrong. The theory of evolution makes no attempt whatsoever to be an explanation for the origin of life on earth. It makes no claims to be. It only concerns itself with the changes in life once it arose.
Theories and hypotheses about the ORIGIN of life come under the term abiogenesis. Theories of abiogenesis. Not evolution.
You also are angry enough to see reality. 6 year old kids get upset. They get scared. They cry. They need to be talked to in a calming way. Since they are at school several hours of the day, its likely to happen sometimes there. We can have the school handle it, or just toss the kid out of the room, or let him sit there crying and not getting educated. People are not robots, especially children. Schools have to deal with children's psychological issues, that's just a fact of life.
I'm also not quite sure why you differentiate between school and counseling, or anything else for that matter. We give children free education, why not free psych care? Its not a matter of entitlement, its a matter of what we as a humane society feel is on the best interests of society. Why is career counseling at schools OK? Your kids got their free education, isn't it up to you as a parent to steer their life?
Some families can't afford psychiatric care for their children. Should a child's entire future be risked because they need help at a young age dealing with the death of a family member, and the family can't afford that help... thus screwing up the kid's schooling and other things? not to mention that the death of a child's parent might very well cause financial difficulties for that family?
We provide free school lunches for kids whose families can't afford it. That's not education. Do you feel robbed by that practice too?
Human beings are social animals and we have built our society in great part through communal efforts. We are NOT rugged individualists who rely only on ourselves. We rely on each other. There's a strange attitude out there among some who seem to think that our natural state is as solitary creatures fending for ourselves. Who actually think that society was built by people pursuing their own selfish interests. This denies our basic humanity.
Why should the taxpayers pay for a military - isn't it your responsibility to protect yourself and your family? Why should the taxpayers pay for anything?
I do not own a car. I have never owned one, and will never own one. I have never driven. I have always used public transportation... which is much more efficient... and would be even more efficient and cheaper if it was used by all instead of the billions we use to subsidize roads, oil, etc. Why am I paying for you to be able to drive a car around? We fund these things because as a society we feel its in the best interest of all of us. If we also think its in the best interest of all of us to provide counseling for kids at school, we'll do that.
Avarice not only takes the form of greed, it takes the form of stinginess. Concern that someone, somewhere is getting a free ride at your expense. Some of these people want to opt out of society. I say we let them.
They even called my mother in and scolded her for not feeding me... which is the last I heard of it. They later strongly suggested I change schools... this was an honors school and I was ruining their record.
Well, my nieces' dad is dying of cancer, and my youngest ones (6 and 8) sometimes get sad and anxious at school, and their guidance counselor has been great, letting them come and talk and feel safe during school, and she's always asking to be kept up on how things are going with my bro-in-law so she knows what the girls are going through.
Exactly. Which is the problem. It doesn't start in 9th grade, it starts in KINDERGARTEN. These kids' educations are channeled into very narrow areas from their first days in school.
13 or 14 if I remember correctly
The counselor (a woman) proceeded to tell me I had better decide right away what I was going to do with my life, what my career would be. "How do you expect to support a wife and family?" she asked pointedly.
That just further reinforced my impression at the time that at best adults were clueless idiots, and at worst dangerous.
The obsession with the FCATs is insane. Everything in the schools revolves around them. Some administrators in one school even "anointed" kids' desks before the test with holy oil, hoping for higher scores.
I see this as just another attempt to do that - all of the "majors" will certainly be things the FCATs focus on. This is just another way to raise artificial indicators of the success of the schools at the expense of a real education.
It was sitting on the table, I walked by and in my Meniere's-induced instability tripped over the dangling cable. The drive was yanked off the table and shot right off the end of the cable.
What are people doing with drives to make them fail?
No, I didnt imply that sand has a perspective. The article argues that the end of human life would be a tragedy for the UNIVERSE. Its arguing that the universe has a perspective. I'm simply saying that from the perspective of the universe (which has no perspective), a human being and a grain of sand have equal value. Our sentience makes no difference to the universe, because nothing makes a difference to the universe. It only makes a difference to US.
FIVE guys with knives would have about the same effect as five guys with guns. They would kill some passengers before being overtaken. The only difference is that guys with guns might kill a few more. But nobody is going to be flying planes into buildings. Not again.
Go to a beach and pick of a grain of sand, and that single grain is a more important part of that beach that this planet is of the universe...
And a few little animated molecules on an insignificant speck are somehow so important?
There are possibly millions of other sentient species in the universe. Who's to say we're the most interesting? And who's to say our species is more interesting and unique than, say Tyrannosaurus Rex was?
From the perspective of US, of course we're important. From the perspective of ants, ants are more important. From the perspective of the entire universe, there IS no perspective of the entire universe, it doesn't fucking have one. If we cease to exist, or rather WHEN we cease to exist, it's just another wiggle in the vibrations of the stuff of the universe.
That's not to say the extinction of humans wouldnt be a tragedy, but get over your inability to see past your own perspective and realize that the tragedy would be for US and us alone. It would be a tragedy for humans. It would not be a tragedy for anyone or anything else. For most things, it wouldn't be noticed. For some things, it would be a boon - opening up new niches for life to spread into. Things would replace all the megafauna we've hunted to extinction. To an outside observer, the earth might even look nicer - with a more diverse ecosystem. Unless the outside observer is a car nut.
Actually, no. I never read that. the idea of fucking OBVIOUS. That's my point - you don't have to be brilliant, or have to have read the right thing to come up with simple ways to get past screening. I didn't have to read a book where some brilliant person came up with the idea, I just had to know two things: 1. there are glass knives. 2. metal detectors don't detect glass.
Which is another reason why the passenger screening is bullshit.
Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.
Meanwhile, none of these measures would find a glass or obsidian (sharper than a razor) knife strapped to your leg. Which is just one thing I thought of off hand. I sure hope all terrorists are idiots. I just don't think they are.
So if one of these peons gets their hands on the info, and is not reproducing it and thus breaking copyright, is there any legal restriction from THEM saying "hey! I just found out that XXXX will be on sale in two weeks!!!"
The viewers are not their customers. The advertisers are their customers. The viewers are their PRODUCT. (The shows are the bait.)
but your point still stands... the listings should be provided free, it would be good business. Breadcrumbs leading to the bait, etc.
But that's the point. The media industry HATES fair use, always has. They tried to make it illegal in the late 70's and got their asses handed to them in the courts. So they found a way to eliminate fair use by making an end run around it. They found a way to make it illegal to create the backup that you can legally own.
The neocons themselves invented it. Irving Kristol, cofounder of Encounter and its editor from 1953 to 1958, Norman Podhoretz, and others described themselves as "neoconservatives" during the Cold War.