The atheists are easily controlled as well. Just establish a counterculture and have controlled opposition because they're as religiously fanatical as the rest but they'll deny it til their graves.
Thank you! I'm tired of people telling me I'm merely a cynical nihilist. Of course, in the end, it doesn't really matter.
What imaginations! Listen, folks - just because one plus one equals two, doesn't mean you have two of anything. Until we figure out how life began, we have no way of predicting whether life is a unique event, or possibly even a commonplace in the galaxy, or the universe. As far as anyone can tell right now, we are alone. If water, and a spot in a habitable zone, automatically equalled life, why have we never seen the generation of new life here on Earth? The evidence suggests we have all descended from a single, unique event.
I think that, barring new information, it is extremely optimistic to expect to find life elsewhere, let alone life forms who've managed to overcome the speed limit of the universe in order to be able to travel the insanely vast distances, (please, do not bring up "wormholes"), your scenarios would require.
I, for one, think this is a good thing. Else, how is my ad blocking software to be able to distinguish between ads and actual results? I say, let the government do something useful for once, even if they're really only waving their finger.
Is it possible the author is confusing the simultaneity of quantum entanglement with "traveling faster than light" here? Hard to know since no one can RTFP.
The BBC home page has just lost its clock because the BBC Trust upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate.
How in the world was it inaccurate? If it showed the user's time, and the user's connected to the internet, it is the correct time. Unless there's some OS I don't know about that doesn't use an online time server to set it's own clock.
Given the SNTP network exists and [is] in use by lots of machines there really doesn't seem to be any need for the BBC to reinvent the atomic clock.
Same with recreational drugs - the old ones are still the best. Prohibition keeps pushing users into less effective and less safe alternatives as the better drugs become more tightly controlled, or removed from market altogether. And as manufacturers make attempts to remove the "fun" component of various drugs, we end up with less effective medications. I'm speaking primarily of pharmaceuticals, of course, but the clamp-down on precursor chemicals has also affected the quality and availability of synthesized psychedelics as well. Hence the proliferation of dubious new drugs such as Spice, or Bath Salts, and the turn to worse-for-you but easier-to-obtain substances such as meth.
But more to the point, (in terms of the FA), money is what drives new drug research, and not as much money can be made off of drugs whose patent has run out. That revenue can only be replaced by coming up with a new patented drug for the same profitable ailment.
That's what I wanted to know. Either it was weak encryption, or they managed to guess his PW, right? But they way they wrote it up in the article makes it sound more like the former.
The only flaw in your plan is that few drugs cause mental health problems, (coke and speed can do this through sleep deprivation), and only enslave people under black market conditions. And even then, it's only a minority of users whose drug use becomes excessive, much as with alcohol.
As you learn more and more about dictatorships, the one thing you begin to notice is how important "morals" are to them. They don't tolerate "deviance" of any sort. No dictator is going to legalize drugs because:
1.) drugs give people ideas
2.) dictators don't like to give up control over any aspect of other people's lives
But, clearly you've drunk the anti-drug Kool-Aid that we've all been fed over the years. You'll first need to free your enslaved mind to see this.
Bridge ratings are per axle weight, usually 34,000 lbs. They simply add wheels to spread out the load. You'll often see, (at least, as a truck driver, I often see), relatively small but very heavy loads on a rig that is much longer than appears to be needed. That's done in order to spread the weight over many axles. I don't think this load's gonna hit "hundreds" of bridges anyway. Most of the journey will be by sea, and Illinois is pretty flat. The interstates they will use typically go under the secondary roads, rather than over them.
Windows was a pretty direct copy of Mac OS. Apple may not have "invented" the GUI, but they put together a pretty nice GUI which MS slavishly copied, down to the drop-down menus.
It seems to me that no one thought another color besides beige or black might look nice on a computer until Apple did.
Did anyone come up with a smart-phone before Apple? I can't remember ever seeing anything like it before the iPhone. The Android GUI is nearly identical.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I, or others, could come up with many more. I don't know if they spent "billions" coming up with, or simply making practical, all these ideas. But there's little doubt they've been copied every step of the way, in ways large and small.
You kids nowadays don't remember what computing was like before Apple. Almost every innovation in personal computing we've seen since the eighties came directly, or indirectly, from Apple. It'd be difficult to overstate Apple's influence on personal computing. Believe me, there's a lot about Apple I don't like, but it makes no sense to deny their impact on every other computer and software maker.
In other words even forgetting disease and subtle losses it is obvious that the use of drugs is far more dangerous that riding motorcycles.
Drugs? There are a lot of different drugs, my friend, many of which are not dangerous in the least. In fact, a great deal of the "carnage" is a direct result of prohibition. And, just as with alcohol, there will always be a minority of people who get into trouble with substances. The vast majority of people use drugs and alcohol, as the commercials put it, responsibly.
The sad fact is, that there is an incredible amount of ignorance around drugs, even among users. Of course, this is no accident. We've all been spoon-fed disinformation since childhood. But don't take my word for it. There is a lot of good information available for those who are actually interested in hearing it. Let me recommend a very well researched and inexpensive book. It certainly opened my eyes on a number of points.
The reason drugs can get banned is because they are so incredibly devastating to individuals to families and to communities when their use becomes common.
Uh, no. It's all about morals. There is no relationship between harm and legality. Except, of course, the harms caused by prohibition. If there were any relationship, pot, psychedelics, opiates, and many other drugs would all be legal. Opiates? Yes, it seems most people are unaware of the fact that opiates cause no organic damage over chronic use. Zero. We know this because opiates have been studied longer and more often than any other drug. As Paracelcus noted many, many years ago, poison is in the dose. The vast majority of problems experienced by junkies are directly, or indirectly, a result of prohibition. Not the least of which are the over-inflated prices of the black market, which in turn is the cause of so many of the health problems they experience. Prohibition is much more "devastating to individuals to families and to communities" than the drugs themselves. There will always be a minority of people who will get into trouble with substances, whether they are legal or not. But just as with alcohol, the vast majority use them responsibly, without causing themselves, or anyone else, any harm.
The parallels with alcohol prohibition are striking, to say the least. As anyone who's seen a gangster movie knows, drive-bys aren't a modern phenomena, they just went out of use after alcohol prohibition ended, only to be revived for drug prohibition.
Another bit of nonsense is the notion that legalization will dramatically increase use. Do you really imagine prohibition is stopping anyone from obtaining drugs? Is that the only reason you're not a meth-head, now? I sincerely hope not. I wouldn't want to have to rely on the government to keep me out of trouble.
In the years leading up to alcohol prohibition, alcohol consumption was slowly dropping. There was a dramatic drop in the first year of prohibition, while the black marketeers scrambled to organize. After 1921, consumption levels rose dramatically, surpassing 1919 levels in 1922, and continued rising. And of course, homicide rates rose even more dramatically. If prohibition has any effect on consumption, it is to increase it. Prohibition creates some very serious problems which otherwise wouldn't exist, and solves exactly none.
None of it comes close to explaining their huge markups.
Yeah, that's what I'd like to hear them explain under oath - how do they justify charging anything over two figures for something that's infinitely, and close to freely, reproducible? I'm sorry, a CD or DVD in a box just isn't worth much money, no matter what's on it.
The thing that gets me to pay is simply a reasonable price, and knowing I'll only have to pay once. You are well within that range. Having a serial number reminds me that it's not freeware. I would certainly give a long trial period, though. The one thing that does get me to launch Serial Box is an app who's features I can't try, or which prevents you from saving your work to disk. And once the serial's been input, I tend to forget about it. Give full function for a good number of uses, or launches.
Another thing that often happens to me is I'll download and install an app, play with it a bit, or just look at the menus, and forget about it for a couple of weeks. Then when I come back to it, even though I've only opened it once, the trial period is over. And if I'm now ready to check the app out, the fastest and easiest thing to do is paste in the serial.
Some people will never pay, and there's no sense making it difficult to get around the DRM. It's been tried, and always fails. But a good app at a reasonable price will sell. Take note, Adobe!
It always amazes me whenever I find out someone's not using ad-blocking. But, unlike most people I know, I won't watch TV because of ads, and I certainly won't pay for cable for the same reason. Does anyone remember when the deal with cable was: you have to pay for it, but there were no ads? Once they got their foot in the door, well, you see what became of it. I've just never been able to tolerate advertising the way others seem to.
As far as I'm concerned, the commercialization of the web was the worst thing to happen to it. These people who view the internet as a money-making scheme, if their sites disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss them. Perhaps if everyone used ad-blocking, we could bring that day closer? What we see now is, the same dumbed-down, lowest common denominator type of crap you find on television, cluttering the web, and chewing up bandwidth. And because it's been dumbed-down, law-enforcement and politicians followed the herd right into it, threatening the freedom once taken for granted online.
So, don't pity these people who are having a hard time filling their pockets by monetizing our interests and personal information. Encourage them to find an honest way to make a living by using ad-blocking, anti-tracking, and cookie-managing software. Please.
I'm so glad my Permanent Record, a bundle of IBM cards and a rotting rubber-band, is packed away in a box somewhere, gathering dust. These kids nowadays, they'll never escape theirs.
They priced themselves out of the market. Even a physical CD is worth practically nothing. Anything infinitely reproducible, at almost no cost, has little intrinsic value. If you want people to shell out money for digital files, they have to be priced attractively, be of the highest quality, and offered conveniently. Yet they stubbornly fought giving their customers what they wanted, continue to do so, and we see where that's landed them.
The delicious irony of all this is that they forced digital upon us and, in their greed, handed us the weapons of their own destruction.
Second of all - the weird thing is that we have a comedian doing a better job of journalism than the so-called journalists. To equate John Stewart with Rush Limbaugh is simply absurd.
But the fact remains that you have to take control of your own privacy, as best you can. I use apps like Ghostery, AdBlock, and Cookies with my browser (Safari) to block tracking, ads, and for automatic cookie blocking and removal. Cookies removes most types of cookie, including Flash cookies and databases. And all of that on top of Privoxy.
If I want a little more privacy, I fire up the Tor Browser. Anyone relying on a Do Not Track header is out of their minds. It does nothing, my friends.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the thing, all email should be encrypted by default.
The atheists are easily controlled as well. Just establish a counterculture and have controlled opposition because they're as religiously fanatical as the rest but they'll deny it til their graves.
Thank you! I'm tired of people telling me I'm merely a cynical nihilist. Of course, in the end, it doesn't really matter.
Listen, folks - just because one plus one equals two, doesn't mean you have two of anything. Until we figure out how life began, we have no way of predicting whether life is a unique event, or possibly even a commonplace in the galaxy, or the universe. As far as anyone can tell right now, we are alone. If water, and a spot in a habitable zone, automatically equalled life, why have we never seen the generation of new life here on Earth? The evidence suggests we have all descended from a single, unique event.
I think that, barring new information, it is extremely optimistic to expect to find life elsewhere, let alone life forms who've managed to overcome the speed limit of the universe in order to be able to travel the insanely vast distances, (please, do not bring up "wormholes"), your scenarios would require.
I, for one, think this is a good thing. Else, how is my ad blocking software to be able to distinguish between ads and actual results? I say, let the government do something useful for once, even if they're really only waving their finger.
Is it possible the author is confusing the simultaneity of quantum entanglement with "traveling faster than light" here? Hard to know since no one can RTFP.
The BBC home page has just lost its clock because the BBC Trust upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate.
How in the world was it inaccurate? If it showed the user's time, and the user's connected to the internet, it is the correct time. Unless there's some OS I don't know about that doesn't use an online time server to set it's own clock.
Given the SNTP network exists and [is] in use by lots of machines there really doesn't seem to be any need for the BBC to reinvent the atomic clock.
Yeah, no kidding. Why is this even a story?
But more to the point, (in terms of the FA), money is what drives new drug research, and not as much money can be made off of drugs whose patent has run out. That revenue can only be replaced by coming up with a new patented drug for the same profitable ailment.
That's what I wanted to know. Either it was weak encryption, or they managed to guess his PW, right? But they way they wrote it up in the article makes it sound more like the former.
1.) drugs give people ideas
2.) dictators don't like to give up control over any aspect of other people's lives
But, clearly you've drunk the anti-drug Kool-Aid that we've all been fed over the years. You'll first need to free your enslaved mind to see this.
I truly hope linux NEVER becomes mainstream
Yep, that's what used to say about Mac OS. *sigh*
Bridge ratings are per axle weight, usually 34,000 lbs. They simply add wheels to spread out the load. You'll often see, (at least, as a truck driver, I often see), relatively small but very heavy loads on a rig that is much longer than appears to be needed. That's done in order to spread the weight over many axles. I don't think this load's gonna hit "hundreds" of bridges anyway. Most of the journey will be by sea, and Illinois is pretty flat. The interstates they will use typically go under the secondary roads, rather than over them.
Clearly he's not giving enough of his money away.
Windows was a pretty direct copy of Mac OS. Apple may not have "invented" the GUI, but they put together a pretty nice GUI which MS slavishly copied, down to the drop-down menus.
It seems to me that no one thought another color besides beige or black might look nice on a computer until Apple did.
Did anyone come up with a smart-phone before Apple? I can't remember ever seeing anything like it before the iPhone. The Android GUI is nearly identical.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I, or others, could come up with many more. I don't know if they spent "billions" coming up with, or simply making practical, all these ideas. But there's little doubt they've been copied every step of the way, in ways large and small.
You kids nowadays don't remember what computing was like before Apple. Almost every innovation in personal computing we've seen since the eighties came directly, or indirectly, from Apple. It'd be difficult to overstate Apple's influence on personal computing. Believe me, there's a lot about Apple I don't like, but it makes no sense to deny their impact on every other computer and software maker.
In other words even forgetting disease and subtle losses it is obvious that the use of drugs is far more dangerous that riding motorcycles.
Drugs? There are a lot of different drugs, my friend, many of which are not dangerous in the least. In fact, a great deal of the "carnage" is a direct result of prohibition. And, just as with alcohol, there will always be a minority of people who get into trouble with substances. The vast majority of people use drugs and alcohol, as the commercials put it, responsibly.
The sad fact is, that there is an incredible amount of ignorance around drugs, even among users. Of course, this is no accident. We've all been spoon-fed disinformation since childhood. But don't take my word for it. There is a lot of good information available for those who are actually interested in hearing it. Let me recommend a very well researched and inexpensive book. It certainly opened my eyes on a number of points.
http://www.amazon.com/Saying-Yes-Jacob-Sullum/dp/1585423181
"you don't see Budweiser and Heinken shooting each other over territory"
Not anymore, anyway. But of course we saw exactly the same problems anagama outlines above, during alcohol prohibition.
The reason drugs can get banned is because they are so incredibly devastating to individuals to families and to communities when their use becomes common.
Uh, no. It's all about morals. There is no relationship between harm and legality. Except, of course, the harms caused by prohibition. If there were any relationship, pot, psychedelics, opiates, and many other drugs would all be legal. Opiates? Yes, it seems most people are unaware of the fact that opiates cause no organic damage over chronic use. Zero. We know this because opiates have been studied longer and more often than any other drug. As Paracelcus noted many, many years ago, poison is in the dose. The vast majority of problems experienced by junkies are directly, or indirectly, a result of prohibition. Not the least of which are the over-inflated prices of the black market, which in turn is the cause of so many of the health problems they experience. Prohibition is much more "devastating to individuals to families and to communities" than the drugs themselves. There will always be a minority of people who will get into trouble with substances, whether they are legal or not. But just as with alcohol, the vast majority use them responsibly, without causing themselves, or anyone else, any harm. The parallels with alcohol prohibition are striking, to say the least. As anyone who's seen a gangster movie knows, drive-bys aren't a modern phenomena, they just went out of use after alcohol prohibition ended, only to be revived for drug prohibition.
Another bit of nonsense is the notion that legalization will dramatically increase use. Do you really imagine prohibition is stopping anyone from obtaining drugs? Is that the only reason you're not a meth-head, now? I sincerely hope not. I wouldn't want to have to rely on the government to keep me out of trouble.
In the years leading up to alcohol prohibition, alcohol consumption was slowly dropping. There was a dramatic drop in the first year of prohibition, while the black marketeers scrambled to organize. After 1921, consumption levels rose dramatically, surpassing 1919 levels in 1922, and continued rising. And of course, homicide rates rose even more dramatically. If prohibition has any effect on consumption, it is to increase it. Prohibition creates some very serious problems which otherwise wouldn't exist, and solves exactly none.
None of it comes close to explaining their huge markups.
Yeah, that's what I'd like to hear them explain under oath - how do they justify charging anything over two figures for something that's infinitely, and close to freely, reproducible? I'm sorry, a CD or DVD in a box just isn't worth much money, no matter what's on it.
Another thing that often happens to me is I'll download and install an app, play with it a bit, or just look at the menus, and forget about it for a couple of weeks. Then when I come back to it, even though I've only opened it once, the trial period is over. And if I'm now ready to check the app out, the fastest and easiest thing to do is paste in the serial.
Some people will never pay, and there's no sense making it difficult to get around the DRM. It's been tried, and always fails. But a good app at a reasonable price will sell. Take note, Adobe!
As far as I'm concerned, the commercialization of the web was the worst thing to happen to it. These people who view the internet as a money-making scheme, if their sites disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss them. Perhaps if everyone used ad-blocking, we could bring that day closer? What we see now is, the same dumbed-down, lowest common denominator type of crap you find on television, cluttering the web, and chewing up bandwidth. And because it's been dumbed-down, law-enforcement and politicians followed the herd right into it, threatening the freedom once taken for granted online.
So, don't pity these people who are having a hard time filling their pockets by monetizing our interests and personal information. Encourage them to find an honest way to make a living by using ad-blocking, anti-tracking, and cookie-managing software. Please.
I was really questioning the need of a "charm school" for nerds until I read some of these comments. Clearly, the need is there.
I'm so glad my Permanent Record, a bundle of IBM cards and a rotting rubber-band, is packed away in a box somewhere, gathering dust. These kids nowadays, they'll never escape theirs.
The delicious irony of all this is that they forced digital upon us and, in their greed, handed us the weapons of their own destruction.
It's because prosecutors have immunity for their actions. They get away with murder everyday.
Second of all - the weird thing is that we have a comedian doing a better job of journalism than the so-called journalists. To equate John Stewart with Rush Limbaugh is simply absurd.
But the fact remains that you have to take control of your own privacy, as best you can. I use apps like Ghostery, AdBlock, and Cookies with my browser (Safari) to block tracking, ads, and for automatic cookie blocking and removal. Cookies removes most types of cookie, including Flash cookies and databases. And all of that on top of Privoxy.
If I want a little more privacy, I fire up the Tor Browser. Anyone relying on a Do Not Track header is out of their minds. It does nothing, my friends.
29766