Australia has had downloadable content for a while now that allows you to watch foxtel (what you yanks call cable) streamed through your xbox (costs doush to use though). Having free to air streamed though the xbox would be cool though.
is for a number of consumers who get cut off from the net as a result of RIAA's actions to file a class action suit for tortuous interference. I can't wait.
Make use of privacy settings on social networking sites. You never know who could be using peoples profiles (when the whole world can look at your full profile) for what purposes. It could be recruitment firms doing background checks, PIs looking into your activities, spammers harvesting email addresses, etc.
Not that I believe investing in education is bad, but passing it off as an economic stimulus is disingenuous.
So US schools are going to have better net connections how exactly? This is not going to be the result of paying companies in the US to make it so? And individual school networks are going to be set up by whom exactly? Who's going to administer them?
As someone with an addictive personality, I disagree with you. Imagine being a recovering drug addict, walking into Walgreens to get aspirin for a headache, as you are paying for it, you see behind the cashier "ICE BRAND METH $40". You didn't walk into the store to buy meth, but your old addiction starts tempting you. It would be sooo easy to say "and can you grab me some of that meth too". You hesitate... but in a moment of weakness, you buy the meth. You are now again a meth addict.
Alcoholics have to deal with such a reality on a daily basis. Your point?
FACT: The percentages of different people being addicted to differing substances and been relatively stable regardless of the various substances legal status. This of course is disrupted by new substances being discovered.
Yeah, that's true -- it makes more sense to either ban all, or ban none.
I worked with a guy who was driving and was hit head-on by some drunk idiot. He and his girlfriend were both in pretty bad shape for a while. I know that alcohol's not going to get banned again, but you wonder how many lives it would save if it did?
Short answer, probably none. People would continue to drink it regardless of it being illegal. Perhaps not as many, however the less people dying in drink driving accidents would probably be made up for by more people dying as a result of massively increased organised crime activity.
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
By your logic Australia, should have a higher murder rate than the US. Did it ever pass through your skull that the restrictive laws were the result of pre-existing high gun murder rates and not the other way around?
And why, exactly, does Simon Morris think that he, single-handedly, can do better than the folks at the IETF, most of whom have PhDs in computer science? Seems a bit presumptious, if you ask me.
And Einstein was being presumptuous when he was thinking he had a better idea then those who had gone before him. Your point?
WOW! Something that my tax dollars pay for that MIGHT actually benefit me? Neat-o.
I mean welfare and social security is great, but besides the roads and military it would be nice to get some value back.
So you're getting benefit as a result of the billions up billions a year that it costs the US military to be in Iraq? You must be a employee or stockholder of a military contractor.
Absolutely No. It is immoral and not just from a religious stand. Forget religious objections. It is simply ethically wrong. Where would it stop? It would go beyond just satisfying some intellectual curiosity to cloning species to harvest their organs.
What is ethically wrong about cloning anything. Period. I don't think the question even touched on harvesting organs. Your objection is simply irrelevant.
The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first.
No it would be evidence of "a large amount of high energy cosmic rays".
Defining someone else's utterance or writing as "hate" speech (politically incorrect) and then outlawing it is an example of abridgment, which destroys freedom of speech.
Communication is an act and should always be held as accountable as any other type of act.
As an internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporter who believes it is vital to repair our reputation overseas,and is beyond thrilled that Obama won, let me just say: Back off. We are still the most powerful country in the world, and we chose Obama because he was the best choice for us, not for you. We are not coming to you hat in hand asking for your forgiveness, and you have no ability to put us on "notice."
As someone from the rest of the world who has seen the consequences of you bunch electing a bad president. Yeah, you elected Obama for you. However think about someone else for a change.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd be right about that. In Australia streaming Foxtel through your xbox is only for gold members and then you got to pay extra again.
Australia has had downloadable content for a while now that allows you to watch foxtel (what you yanks call cable) streamed through your xbox (costs doush to use though). Having free to air streamed though the xbox would be cool though.
How about you put in the work of getting a high karma so you can mod stuff up, instead of asking everyone else to act on you passions?
"As an Australian who voted for the other guys, all I can say is, wow."
You expected more infrastructure building from the Liberal party? Which planet do you live on?
is for a number of consumers who get cut off from the net as a result of RIAA's actions to file a class action suit for tortuous interference. I can't wait.
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/australia-oks-facebook-for-serving-lien-notice-20081216-6zva.html
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/facebook-used-to-find-defendants-in-australian-court-case-20081216-6zog.html
http://news.smh.com.au/national/facebook-used-to-track-down-debtors-20081216-6zgt.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/lawyers-to-serve-notices-on-facebook/2008/12/16/1229189579001.html
Make use of privacy settings on social networking sites. You never know who could be using peoples profiles (when the whole world can look at your full profile) for what purposes. It could be recruitment firms doing background checks, PIs looking into your activities, spammers harvesting email addresses, etc.
Not that I believe investing in education is bad, but passing it off as an economic stimulus is disingenuous.
So US schools are going to have better net connections how exactly? This is not going to be the result of paying companies in the US to make it so? And individual school networks are going to be set up by whom exactly? Who's going to administer them?
As someone with an addictive personality, I disagree with you. Imagine being a recovering drug addict, walking into Walgreens to get aspirin for a headache, as you are paying for it, you see behind the cashier "ICE BRAND METH $40". You didn't walk into the store to buy meth, but your old addiction starts tempting you. It would be sooo easy to say "and can you grab me some of that meth too". You hesitate... but in a moment of weakness, you buy the meth. You are now again a meth addict.
Alcoholics have to deal with such a reality on a daily basis. Your point?
FACT: The percentages of different people being addicted to differing substances and been relatively stable regardless of the various substances legal status. This of course is disrupted by new substances being discovered.
To some extent, yes.
I reckon a lot of kids with violent alcoholic parents would get beat up less if their parents switched to marijuana or heroin.
Yeah, that's true -- it makes more sense to either ban all, or ban none.
I worked with a guy who was driving and was hit head-on by some drunk idiot. He and his girlfriend were both in pretty bad shape for a while. I know that alcohol's not going to get banned again, but you wonder how many lives it would save if it did?
Short answer, probably none. People would continue to drink it regardless of it being illegal. Perhaps not as many, however the less people dying in drink driving accidents would probably be made up for by more people dying as a result of massively increased organised crime activity.
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
By your logic Australia, should have a higher murder rate than the US. Did it ever pass through your skull that the restrictive laws were the result of pre-existing high gun murder rates and not the other way around?
Maxthon, Camino or Epiphany browsers in their own right.
And why, exactly, does Simon Morris think that he, single-handedly, can do better than the folks at the IETF, most of whom have PhDs in computer science? Seems a bit presumptious, if you ask me.
And Einstein was being presumptuous when he was thinking he had a better idea then those who had gone before him. Your point?
See the sig, that said, idiots can be found in all shapes, colours and persuasions.
WOW! Something that my tax dollars pay for that MIGHT actually benefit me? Neat-o.
I mean welfare and social security is great, but besides the roads and military it would be nice to get some value back.
So you're getting benefit as a result of the billions up billions a year that it costs the US military to be in Iraq?
You must be a employee or stockholder of a military contractor.
Absolutely No. It is immoral and not just from a religious stand. Forget religious objections. It is simply ethically wrong. Where would it stop? It would go beyond just satisfying some intellectual curiosity to cloning species to harvest their organs.
What is ethically wrong about cloning anything. Period. I don't think the question even touched on harvesting organs. Your objection is simply irrelevant.
The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first.
No it would be evidence of "a large amount of high energy cosmic rays".
This is exactly why Quine argued that you can't hold analytic propositions to be distinct from synthetic propositions.
Defining someone else's utterance or writing as "hate" speech (politically incorrect) and then outlawing it is an example of abridgment, which destroys freedom of speech.
Communication is an act and should always be held as accountable as any other type of act.
Simple things like you mention to someone, "I use a 512k connection" -- they would assume that you would be downloading at 512kb/s, not 1/8th of that.
They would be assuming correctly. They would be assuming incorrectly if they were to think that you would were downloading at 512kB/s.
Like the Brits did in 1812? 1914? Forget the rest of Europe...
You ask for things you were not willing to do yourselves...
Who said I was a Brit?
As an internationalist, socially leftist Obama supporter who believes it is vital to repair our reputation overseas,and is beyond thrilled that Obama won, let me just say: Back off. We are still the most powerful country in the world, and we chose Obama because he was the best choice for us, not for you. We are not coming to you hat in hand asking for your forgiveness, and you have no ability to put us on "notice."
As someone from the rest of the world who has seen the consequences of you bunch electing a bad president. Yeah, you elected Obama for you. However think about someone else for a change.
So why didn't his lawyer use the Chewbacca defense?