1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.
2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...
3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.
4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.
Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?
Teaching everybody to a minimum standard is a very noble cause but it isn't possible for everyone you teach to live up to that standard; so instead we end up with these bitter drop-outs who are essentially labled as unemployable just because they can't tell you what the capital of Nebraska is.
We had those bitter drop-outs who were labeled unemployable even when I was in school, which was well before NCLB. I think they even had the same "school sux and is useless anyway" reasoning.
Mars has an atmosphere, not much of one to be sure, but it does have one. Why else do you think so many landers used parachutes to help slow their descent?
Huh. I always thought it was for nasa to get a little extra funding on the side. That way as the native Martians watch the probe descend, they can see a big 'chute (with a big ad on it) pop out too. How else will they know how good Pawtucket Patriot Ale really is?
So the Slashdot groupthink's anti-law enforcement stance has extended to the Secret Service now? Which part are we in favor of: counterfeiting money or assassinating the president?
So is "stopping counterfeiting" the new "think of the children"?
*disclaimer*: I already know the answer is 'yes'. Want the gov't to protect your entertainment-industry business model? Then push for a law (or better, international treaty) that stops counterfeiting with a heavy hand, then bend/twist/reinterpret the law to bow to your will instead. And if someone complains, well we can't have counterfeiting, now can we?
are the ones that are open to peer review. So Kudos to the Chinese for being smart enough to make these idiot companies with closed-source encryption technologies provide them with the source code for review. Good encryption does not rely on obfuscation of code and processes!
I'm not disputing your premise, but adding a rider- sending your source code to somebody who has no intention of telling you about the holes they found (and might be planning to abuse them instead) won't help you or your other customers one bit.
A racist cop (because there are some police that are racists, just like any other segment of the population) is going to decide that someone is brown enough that they must be an immigrant and has done something allegedly suspicious demand their papers. Said person, who is a citizen, will tell them to fuck off. They arrest him.
...
Citizenship is established, he goes free. He files suit against Arizona for violating his rights
and gets bitch-slapped in court, because telling a cop to fuck off is "interfering with police business", "being a public nuisance", and "resisting arrest". To win a lawsuit against the police things have to get really bad, like if the police slammed the guy's face against the hood of the police car and somebody happened to record it on video.
Nope, this is only affecting in-state commerce with Massachusetts residents. And the states are absolutely allowed to pass laws that affect out-of-state businesses when they do business in the state. The only constitutional prohibitions on that are when the law is protectionist - imposes additional cost on out-of-state businesses that in-state business don't have to pay.
That's what the interstate commerce clause might've meant in the beginning, but nowadays it's more like "if enough people or businesses are potentially affected by it, then it would start to affect interstate commerce, which means congress can and should be the ones to regulate/handle it." Which is why we have numerous laws like "illegally chewing bubblegum while engaged in interstate commerce".
According to the Facebook statistics page the average account has 130 friends. If 1 in 300 accounts are compromised and you have circa 130 friends then the odds are quite high that the personal data you have "only available to friends" is going to become available to some fairly unfriendly people shortly.
Of course, the way facebook itself is headed odds are high that "only available to friends" data is already going to be available to everybody shortly. At least that's what facebook's retroactive TOS changes say.
It's not as inconsistent as you'd think- if the owner of car wants the blackbox data, she should get it, no problem. If anybody else wants the data, let 'em either ask the owner to voluntarily go along with it, or ask a judge for a court order (with appropriate legal conditionals so the judge can't just rubberstamp it).
Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs, and patent it.
Then, I go over to facebook, and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends, essentially acting like children watching a football game "Go Democrats! Fuck Republicans!" "Go Republicans! Fuck Democrats!"
When the Chinese are allowed to join opposing political parties, you'll start to see "Fuck the Communists!" too. Until then, that's a privilege they don't have.
Take China as an example. Like every other country, they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy, but they are doing it with purpose.
Sure, it's easy to do that when you don't have to deal with dissent, individual freedoms, property rights, challenges to your authority, etc.
100% of encryption is insecure, if you throw enough resources into breaking it.
The real question is how much effort is put into the encryption (both human-hours
developing the system, and cpu-cycles doing the math) vs how much effort the
attacker can/will put into breaking it.
I'm guessing PhoneCrypt (just to pick one from tfa) is breakable if Eve has enough
resources to spend, and is willing to spend them.
I strongly believe that beyond an initial marketing push, if a product is truly good, it can sell itself.
Well, we do have the computer field as a major counterexample. The best-selling computer system for a long time has been MS Windows, which has always been the crappiest product available.
Logically, that's not a counter-example. It's possible that truly good products and crappy products can both sell themselves.
Inverse vs converse vs contrapositives and all.
> If I wanted to buy a car from somebody, how would I do it?
Transfer money from your bank account directly to theirs ?
Taking it one step further, we could have a piece of paper that says how much to transfer, signed by the transferer to make it legal. Then there'd even be a paper trail that could be checked if there were any problems!
Not sure what to call something like that, maybe "instant signed bank-to-bank transfer guarantee on paper receipt" (or "isbtobtgopr" for short)?
If it really was a coverup, then they would have been deleted completely.
and if it really was unintentional, then they would've taken less than "new administration plus year+" to find them.
Maybe it was an accident, and they found them on some unlabeled backup tape. Maybe it was an accident, and this is the first time they thought of using low-level disk tools to undelete. Or maybe it was intentional, and someone doing the grunt work "forgot" to "accidently delete" the backup tapes (in a whistle-blower kind of way). But the intense secrecy ethic of Cheney-Rove run administration (c'mon, it's true) combined with a "nothing could be gained by telling exactly what happened" reasoning now, we'll never really know.
Personally, I think its a great way to deal with the dregs of society; eliminate the ones causing problems, and you'll only be left with people who aren't causing problems.
Who gets to decide which are "the ones causing problems"?
And please remember it was the Global War on Terror, not the war on AQ.
"Global war on terror" was a carefully thought-out euphemism, to get away from talking about AQ and why we can't catch UBL. It was "global" in the same sense that baseball's "World series" has the best teams in the world.
After 9/11 it became US policy that anyone who thought terrorism (defined as random attacks on non-military targets and/or deliberate killing of civilians) was a valid tactic was going to get snuffed.
That "random attacks..." was the starting point for the definition of terrorism, but was in no way was the final answer. Whether the attackers are friendly/indifferent/enemies to the US, are attacking people friendly/indifferent/enemies to the US, what kind of vested interest we have in the area (mineral resources, etc), what kind of government is in the area, what kind of blowback for calling/not-calling them terrorists, etc, etc, all factor heavily into who we call "terrorists". And that doesn't even cover the last election cycle, when people were calling some candidate or other "terrorist" just because they wanted the other people to win.
The population seems to think the automated systems care more about their privacy.. they just want to sell you stuff, not sell the history off to some PI that your ex hired..
... unless they can find a profitable market doing that.
This doesn't solve the problem of too many cables, but I've been color-coding all the tv/dvd/ad-naseum cords behind the tv stand. Two pieces of tape on each end (say, "red with green") makes it easier to track all those cables around (especially if you write down where each color-coded cord starts and ends).
Packs with 5 colors of vinyl tape (R, G, B, Y, W) can be found in lots of retail stores, and packs with more colors are pretty easy to find over the web (google for "vinyl tape"). Here's the pack I ordered (I don't have a vested interest in this company, I'm just a customer): http://www.identi-tape.com/harness.htm.
> Because I am a fully functioning sentient human being both capable and deserving of the right to determine for myself what course of action is "smart".
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
-Kay
> at least they [CA republicans] are true fiscal conservatives unlike the Republicans in the US congress.
Don't make the mistake of assuming they are fiscally conservative. Every minority party makes this
claim, saying "we wouldn't blow our wad on all this spending!" when there's no action needed and no political
risk for talking the talk. If they took majority, maybe they'd reign in spending, or maybe they'd do what every party has done
in the past- shift spending from all those wasteful projects they complained about to a whole new set of
wasteful projects.
Look at the rhetoric from the US congresscritters before+after the last congressional party switch...
Republicans have scr*w*d up the country but on this issue, they have always been a better alternative.
This is blantantly untrue. The republican view (from McCain all the way to the FCC/FTC) is that free-markets should decide the issue, and there's
of course the fringeballs that think net-neutrality is code-speak for "forced to give equal time or equal space on their website to opposing views".
Why do you think "the Sonny Bono Act" was named after a republican?
Feinstein's problem isn't democrat-vs-republican, it's being elected (or is that "doing what it takes to be elected"?) in a state with a huge vested interest
toward making money from media delivered via the set of tubes.
Slashdot Mirror
Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?
scientology?
We had those bitter drop-outs who were labeled unemployable even when I was in school, which was well before NCLB. I think they even had the same "school sux and is useless anyway" reasoning.
Huh. I always thought it was for nasa to get a little extra funding on the side. That way as the native Martians watch the probe descend, they can see a big 'chute (with a big ad on it) pop out too. How else will they know how good Pawtucket Patriot Ale really is?
So is "stopping counterfeiting" the new "think of the children"?
*disclaimer*: I already know the answer is 'yes'. Want the gov't to protect your entertainment-industry business model? Then push for a law (or better, international treaty) that stops counterfeiting with a heavy hand, then bend/twist/reinterpret the law to bow to your will instead. And if someone complains, well we can't have counterfeiting, now can we?
I'm not disputing your premise, but adding a rider- sending your source code to somebody who has no intention of telling you about the holes they found (and might be planning to abuse them instead) won't help you or your other customers one bit.
and gets bitch-slapped in court, because telling a cop to fuck off is "interfering with police business", "being a public nuisance", and "resisting arrest". To win a lawsuit against the police things have to get really bad, like if the police slammed the guy's face against the hood of the police car and somebody happened to record it on video.
That's what the interstate commerce clause might've meant in the beginning, but nowadays it's more like "if enough people or businesses are potentially affected by it, then it would start to affect interstate commerce, which means congress can and should be the ones to regulate/handle it." Which is why we have numerous laws like "illegally chewing bubblegum while engaged in interstate commerce".
Of course, the way facebook itself is headed odds are high that "only available to friends" data is already going to be available to everybody shortly. At least that's what facebook's retroactive TOS changes say.
It's a reaction because of organizations that insist on protecting nothing. The douchebag orgs kind of ruined it for everyone.
It's not as inconsistent as you'd think- if the owner of car wants the blackbox data, she should get it, no problem. If anybody else wants the data, let 'em either ask the owner to voluntarily go along with it, or ask a judge for a court order (with appropriate legal conditionals so the judge can't just rubberstamp it).
Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs, and patent it.
When the Chinese are allowed to join opposing political parties, you'll start to see "Fuck the Communists!" too. Until then, that's a privilege they don't have.
Sure, it's easy to do that when you don't have to deal with dissent, individual freedoms, property rights, challenges to your authority, etc.
100% of encryption is insecure, if you throw enough resources into breaking it. The real question is how much effort is put into the encryption (both human-hours developing the system, and cpu-cycles doing the math) vs how much effort the attacker can/will put into breaking it.
I'm guessing PhoneCrypt (just to pick one from tfa) is breakable if Eve has enough resources to spend, and is willing to spend them.
Logically, that's not a counter-example. It's possible that truly good products and crappy products can both sell themselves.
Inverse vs converse vs contrapositives and all.
Taking it one step further, we could have a piece of paper that says how much to transfer, signed by the transferer to make it legal. Then there'd even be a paper trail that could be checked if there were any problems!
Not sure what to call something like that, maybe "instant signed bank-to-bank transfer guarantee on paper receipt" (or "isbtobtgopr" for short)?
and if it really was unintentional, then they would've taken less than "new administration plus year+" to find them.
Maybe it was an accident, and they found them on some unlabeled backup tape. Maybe it was an accident, and this is the first time they thought of using low-level disk tools to undelete. Or maybe it was intentional, and someone doing the grunt work "forgot" to "accidently delete" the backup tapes (in a whistle-blower kind of way). But the intense secrecy ethic of Cheney-Rove run administration (c'mon, it's true) combined with a "nothing could be gained by telling exactly what happened" reasoning now, we'll never really know.
Who gets to decide which are "the ones causing problems"?
"Global war on terror" was a carefully thought-out euphemism, to get away from talking about AQ and why we can't catch UBL. It was "global" in the same sense that baseball's "World series" has the best teams in the world.
That "random attacks ..." was the starting point for the definition of terrorism, but was in no way was the final answer. Whether the attackers are friendly/indifferent/enemies to the US, are attacking people friendly/indifferent/enemies to the US, what kind of vested interest we have in the area (mineral resources, etc), what kind of government is in the area, what kind of blowback for calling/not-calling them terrorists, etc, etc, all factor heavily into who we call "terrorists". And that doesn't even cover the last election cycle, when people were calling some candidate or other "terrorist" just because they wanted the other people to win.
The population seems to think the automated systems care more about their privacy .. they just want to sell you stuff, not sell the history off to some PI that your ex hired ..
... unless they can find a profitable market doing that.
This doesn't solve the problem of too many cables, but I've been color-coding all the tv/dvd/ad-naseum cords behind the tv stand. Two pieces of tape on each end (say, "red with green") makes it easier to track all those cables around (especially if you write down where each color-coded cord starts and ends).
.
Packs with 5 colors of vinyl tape (R, G, B, Y, W) can be found in lots of retail stores, and packs with more colors are pretty easy to find over the web (google for "vinyl tape"). Here's the pack I ordered (I don't have a vested interest in this company, I'm just a customer): http://www.identi-tape.com/harness.htm
Yet, it's still not illegal to be a jerk. You CAN commit crimes WHILE being a jerk, but being a jerk simply isn't a crime.
Yeah, but being a jerk while commiting a crime will probably get your body slammed to the dirt a lot harder than just doing a crime.
> Because I am a fully functioning sentient human being both capable and deserving of the right to determine for myself what course of action is "smart".
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
-Kay
> at least they [CA republicans] are true fiscal conservatives unlike the Republicans in the US congress.
Don't make the mistake of assuming they are fiscally conservative. Every minority party makes this claim, saying "we wouldn't blow our wad on all this spending!" when there's no action needed and no political risk for talking the talk. If they took majority, maybe they'd reign in spending, or maybe they'd do what every party has done in the past- shift spending from all those wasteful projects they complained about to a whole new set of wasteful projects.
Look at the rhetoric from the US congresscritters before+after the last congressional party switch...
This is blantantly untrue. The republican view (from McCain all the way to the FCC/FTC) is that free-markets should decide the issue, and there's of course the fringeballs that think net-neutrality is code-speak for "forced to give equal time or equal space on their website to opposing views". Why do you think "the Sonny Bono Act" was named after a republican?
Feinstein's problem isn't democrat-vs-republican, it's being elected (or is that "doing what it takes to be elected"?) in a state with a huge vested interest toward making money from media delivered via the set of tubes.