The reasons they gave on the BBC site was that Pedos are using special software to turn photos into drawings. I would like to see this software, it sounds very cool
standard photoshop, even alot of other Adobe software has a limited form of this.
You load the picture select the area and then select the style you want it converted to a few seconds later you have an drawing done in that style.
Here is a quick tutorial showing the photo to pencil drawing conversion. With example.
So what does this mean for Native Americans? They were aggressive immigrants who displaced the original population?
Yep and that is not a surprise. If you read the oral histories of the various current North American Tribes they tell of thier ancesors replacing the people who lived there before.
Many times it was done in war but you also have things like tribes forming together to form a new distinct group, or outsiders coming in and over time they replace the people formerly there and the old group melting into the new tribe.
I have heard, no guarrentee, there is not one modern North American tribe that can say that thier ancestors were the first in the area and they did not displace someother group of people. This was based on thier first interaction with Europians.
It was hardly done in secret and it has not been signed, this was a kdawson story so you have to take that most thing you read are incorrect.
A quick search of finds lots of articles about it such as one from the Canadian Office of Forgein Affairs done back in 2007.
They even have a page with contact phone numbers and email address were you can tell them what you think; be smart not your standard/. comments.
If this was a secretly done treaty then what do they do for ones done in public?
You know it is getting bad when you create a stupid word like phlashing and it is already being used to indicate "Flash-based phishing sites".
For those wondering why you would need to seperate types of phishing sites, according to Netcraft(and yes Netcraft said they are increasing)
Attackers have begun using Flash animation to create spoof sites as a strategy to defeat automated anti-phishing services, which scan the text of a page in search of suspect phrases (brands of financial institutions, for example) that may identify it as a phishing scam. Phishers previously shifted from HTML to Javascript to make it harder to analyze a page's source code, and the use of Flash represents the next step in this evolution.
That Microsoft did not get Yahoo is not something that Ballmer or Microsoft will not be blamed for. He set a price and when it was not accepted tried various negoiations and when that failed he walked away. Smart business.
He now just has to show how Microsoft will build software to fit the roll Yahoo would, but he has this year or longer to do that.
Now if you are the CEO of Yahoo you better be about to deliever the golden goose.
There is a 3rd. People far smarter then you who actually look up what they hear and find out that most that is said about him is not true.
For example Libby was NOT pardoned, his prison sentance was commuted.
infant mortality is not a good measurement because US has one of the most liberal measurements to start the clock. In the US if the baby can make any type of movement by itself outside of the womb it is counted against infant mortaility. This is in contrast to most other countries where they don't start counting until the child has reached a certain weight, height or age.
With the large number or early childbirth you start including all those that modern medicine helps along with the way the US counts and the US rate is terrible. Set a standard measurement and the US is not.
The $2000 does not go for the usage it is already a protected park. A few of the other ones of this nature I have heard about work by purchasing an area then donating it to a tax free wildlife group with the condition that they can still bury people under it. They get a tax break right off and a really high profit burial site(no upkeep, no taxes, basicly nothing after the interment). Thier only upkeep are the GPS devices and maybe a person to provide the GPS device and minor help.
Also a normal low cost burial goes for $3000 so by the time you remove costs for the higher cost coffin and provide landscaping it is high profit. For normal funerals in both the US and Australian are right around the same in the $5000-$6000 range. Exchange rate is currently $1US is $1.05AUD.
As a comparison when my Grandmother died 2 years ago she was cermated and ashes scattered at sea and that cost in the $700 range.
There is no fair use about this.
EMI is saying when you upload a file to an on-line site you are lossing posestion of the file and it is entering the possestion of the site you uploaded the file too. It the uploader is still claiming rights to the file then a copy was made. Making an additional copy of the music is a right that only EMI can give. Never mind that all the music upload was not from EMI.
mp3tunes case was that they were not sharing the files, only available to the uploader, and they did nothing with the files except provide backup protection and allow the uploader purchaser access to them.
The lower court has already decided on this in favor of mp3tunes. This was back in March, the item released today was more in the area of a press release.
Then as you say this will boil down to laws not keeping up with the way technology is going. Chances are in most states in the US and most other countries EMI is probably right in the law.
Wow is the summary wrong, please see http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/eff-issues-report-abuse-national-security-letter for info.
Anyways the truth of the occurance.
1) It was used as a reason why the FBI needs administrative subpoena power instead of NSLs. (summary totaly wrong).
2) What happened. The FBI wanted information on a person who had meet with people involved with the bombers in London; that person had a attended chemical classes from NC State. They went to the professors who gave the FBI some information using a subpeona. Some news articles say this happened others say the subpeona was not honored by the university. Anyways he had some papers but was told by FBI HQ Counter-Terrorism Division to stop and the agent returned the papers.
The FBI agent was told a grant jury subpeona was not legal to use and an NSL was the legal method to use, however NSLs do not allow use for educational records so were also illegal. He takes the NSLS to the university they make some calls and do not honor it because it was an NSL asking for educational records. More details at above link along with the offices saying to use a NSL.
FBI comes back to the offices and asks what to do, after some dicussions he is told subpeona was the correct method so back he goes with another one. Univeristy ultimatly complied and handed over the paperwork.
So the problems with this are: Mueller to Congress said that it delayed by 2 days the processing, agents say it delayed by somewhere around 1 day, original request was on July 13 all was done on July 15; the main problem was the NC office did not report the problems and misuse of the NSL in the time frame they should of and during that time the FBI released a press release saying something that because of this incident was false.
Because they built alot of ships including the two sister ships to the Titanic, the HMHS Britannic and the RMS Olympic which did not have problems.
Here you can read thier definitive history:) Harland and Wolff
Re:In Missouri: a law to ban "BGH Free" labeling
on
Monsanto's Harvest of Fear
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Problem with that is that BGH, Bolvine growth hormone, is a nature product found in all cow milk. There is no way to make BGH-free milk.
Now if they are talking about rBGH, recombinant BGH, which is injected in cattle to increase milk rate the reason for the law is to prevent consumer fear based on ignorance. If I put two glasses of milk in front of you, with from cows with rBGH injections and one without there is no way you can scientifically tell the difference.
The reason for the laws are that people are using fear and ignorance to stop a product. It is no more evil for this law then for laws that say you cannot advertise a brand of baby food by saying there are no ground up cat and dog meat in your product or you are the only local mortuary that has a 100% guarantee that your workers will not have sex with the corpses.
If they want to do additional advertisement get an organic label, which already means no rBGH or advertise that you do more testing then required by FDA. However both of those don't build on the fear and ignorance of the consumer and don't promote the goals of the anti-GM groups.
The main problem is that there are groups of people who are against any type of GM modified food, the fears range from stories out of Outer Limits to fears that they will increase poverty(you cannot produce the better product no-one wants yours) to loss of diverisity.
As for milk and rBGH it is not the BST that is the main concern but IGF-1, insulin growth factor-1. This is naturally occuring in the human and cow body. High levels of IGF1 has been linked to increased chances of certain types of cancer and mabye the increased chance of giving births to twins. Science has not shown in dietary intake of IGF-1 will increase this amount.
Injecting cows with rBGH may increases the amount of IGF-1 found in milk, some studies have shown an increase but all of the studies have shown that it amount falls within the normal amounts. There is no scientific test that can tell you if the milk you are drinking comes from rBBGH injected cows or not. FYI you would have to drink around 95 quarts of milk, any kind, to equal the amount IGF-1 the average human body produces in day.
Now the reason most countries have banned rBGH has not been IGF-1 but because of a udder infection called mastitis. While this is likly to effect all types of cows it can be more common in rBGH cows because they are milked more often. mastitis prevention is mainly done, in the US, by testing at the farms, testing at the plants and pasturization.
For the US that can work since we generally want to consider all milk and dairy products, (cheese, yogurt,etc) to be dead. We freeze and cool them if there is any type of life(mold) we will toss them. In other parts of the world that is not the case and mastitis can be a problem. FYI test to check for the presence of mastitis are cheap and can be purchased at various lifestock stores on even on the internet.
However with that all said, cows milk is probably one of the worst things you can drink as an adult, it is full of sugar and other things needed by children not adults. As an adult you are better off switching to goat milk or using cow milk just for the cream, cheeses or yogurts.
What is the court case or lawsuit that states this? Heck even a letter from a Monsanto lawyer.
There have been many people making this claim but whenever I ask they are never heard from again.
Which is not to say it does not happen just looking for an actual case where Monsanto has used lawyers against someone where this was the case.
The example you showed is NOT a case of crop contaimination.
If you read the decision, not the various sites put up supporting Mr Schmeiser, you find it came about because Mr. Schmeiser identified the round-up resisant plants, then isolated them so they would increase in strength and then saved those seeds. He was deliberatly breeding seeds he knew were contaminated.
Wow you sure don't let the the facts stand in the way of your hate.
If you want to talk about war mongering at least bring in Clinton, under him the US attacked more then 14 different countries a majority of those without any discussion or talk before he attacked. More than both Bush combined.
That the president did not have to abide by treaties was known back in the 1800's and has been backed up by the supreme court in the 1920. So you are probably mixing up the facts again and confusing it with the recent talk about the president having no right to tell states that they have to comply with treaties.
Job wise there has been a growth non-farm jobs of around 5.8 million including the loss of last month. Percentage wise according to the BLS Clinton averaged 5.2% so far Bush has averaged under that, current figures are 4.8%.
The debt is not at 12 trillion, it is under 9.5.
Yes the US has lost some respect because we are not doing what the rest of the countries are telling us what to do. But a large amount of that is just negative articles that spread around the world, two examples.
1) I live in Europe and it is not uncommon to see groups of Americans over here demonstrating against the US and the US president. The Democrate party has admitted that they have funded people to travel to other parts of hte world and talk about the negativies of Bush.
2) Negative media all around, for example the Univerity of Maryland did some counting of the number of time that the US economy was in a recession compared to Clinton when we were actually in a recession to last year, when we were not, there were 78% more negative article for Bush.
There are plenty reasons reasons to bash Bush, his many liberal pushes have been harmful to the US but aleast be truthful.
If that is your fear then you should really read the origin of most of the laws and papers that the Bush administration has put out.
For example the US PATRIOT act for the most part just added spying and terrorist to various laws that already existed, made into formal law some actions allowed by the Clinton administration and then reporting requirements as a safeguard. Alot of the items prescribed to it are actually caused by other laws.
I was like you but I then did alot a research and actually read the papers and found that like this summary most of what was being said was really far off from actuality.
But the military and local law enforcement are different.
Hardly a weakening it was a question to lawyers to tell the administration what could or could not be done in military was ever such needed.
Does the military have to follow the same rules and does exigent circumstances apply to the military when they are deployed on US soil with orders to remove an invading force?
From the paper this is quoted from it looks like they do not because the 4th amendment does not apply them in such rare circumstances.
The summary is very poor write up of what happened.
The name of the document containing the response is entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." and was written in September or October 2001, publishing date is end of october 2001.
It was written in response to the question of what the military could legally do if the US was invaded, however the exact instance being described with reference to the 4th admendment is not known; the paper has not been released.
However it makes sence to say the 4th Admendment does not apply to the military if they are deployed on US territory and in the middle of gunfight with known terrorists.
You are reading it correctly, unfortunatly the summary is just wrong.
From what is known of the document it was written right after 9/11 to answer the question what could the military legally could do if we the US territory was invaded by terrorists. While unknown the exact circumsatances the paper discusses, it is currently not released, it would make sense that the 4th admendment does not apply if terrorists are sitting in a house and firing on the US military.
As for what you are discussing with the wiretapping a read of any of the actually papers allowing it, not summaries from various hate groups, shows that the administration used other laws and in multiple cases said that the 4th admendment does apply to what they were doing.
Slashdot Mirror
The reasons they gave on the BBC site was that Pedos are using special software to turn photos into drawings. I would like to see this software, it sounds very cool
standard photoshop, even alot of other Adobe software has a limited form of this.
You load the picture select the area and then select the style you want it converted to a few seconds later you have an drawing done in that style.
Here is a quick tutorial showing the photo to pencil drawing conversion. With example.
So what does this mean for Native Americans? They were aggressive immigrants who displaced the original population?
Yep and that is not a surprise. If you read the oral histories of the various current North American Tribes they tell of thier ancesors replacing the people who lived there before.
Many times it was done in war but you also have things like tribes forming together to form a new distinct group, or outsiders coming in and over time they replace the people formerly there and the old group melting into the new tribe.
I have heard, no guarrentee, there is not one modern North American tribe that can say that thier ancestors were the first in the area and they did not displace someother group of people. This was based on thier first interaction with Europians.
It was hardly done in secret and it has not been signed, this was a kdawson story so you have to take that most thing you read are incorrect.
/. comments.
A quick search of finds lots of articles about it such as one from the Canadian Office of Forgein Affairs done back in 2007.
They even have a page with contact phone numbers and email address were you can tell them what you think; be smart not your standard
If this was a secretly done treaty then what do they do for ones done in public?
For those wondering why you would need to seperate types of phishing sites, according to Netcraft(and yes Netcraft said they are increasing)
That Microsoft did not get Yahoo is not something that Ballmer or Microsoft will not be blamed for. He set a price and when it was not accepted tried various negoiations and when that failed he walked away. Smart business.
He now just has to show how Microsoft will build software to fit the roll Yahoo would, but he has this year or longer to do that.
Now if you are the CEO of Yahoo you better be about to deliever the golden goose.
Nice one.
Probably the best one I have yet to see.
There is a 3rd. People far smarter then you who actually look up what they hear and find out that most that is said about him is not true.
For example Libby was NOT pardoned, his prison sentance was commuted.
infant mortality is not a good measurement because US has one of the most liberal measurements to start the clock.
In the US if the baby can make any type of movement by itself outside of the womb it is counted against infant mortaility. This is in contrast to most other countries where they don't start counting until the child has reached a certain weight, height or age.
With the large number or early childbirth you start including all those that modern medicine helps along with the way the US counts and the US rate is terrible. Set a standard measurement and the US is not.
The $2000 does not go for the usage it is already a protected park. A few of the other ones of this nature I have heard about work by purchasing an area then donating it to a tax free wildlife group with the condition that they can still bury people under it. They get a tax break right off and a really high profit burial site(no upkeep, no taxes, basicly nothing after the interment). Thier only upkeep are the GPS devices and maybe a person to provide the GPS device and minor help.
Also a normal low cost burial goes for $3000 so by the time you remove costs for the higher cost coffin and provide landscaping it is high profit. For normal funerals in both the US and Australian are right around the same in the $5000-$6000 range. Exchange rate is currently $1US is $1.05AUD.
As a comparison when my Grandmother died 2 years ago she was cermated and ashes scattered at sea and that cost in the $700 range.
There is no fair use about this.
EMI is saying when you upload a file to an on-line site you are lossing posestion of the file and it is entering the possestion of the site you uploaded the file too. It the uploader is still claiming rights to the file then a copy was made. Making an additional copy of the music is a right that only EMI can give. Never mind that all the music upload was not from EMI.
mp3tunes case was that they were not sharing the files, only available to the uploader, and they did nothing with the files except provide backup protection and allow the uploader purchaser access to them.
The lower court has already decided on this in favor of mp3tunes. This was back in March, the item released today was more in the area of a press release.
Then as you say this will boil down to laws not keeping up with the way technology is going. Chances are in most states in the US and most other countries EMI is probably right in the law.
Wow is the summary wrong, please see http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/eff-issues-report-abuse-national-security-letter for info.
Anyways the truth of the occurance.
1) It was used as a reason why the FBI needs administrative subpoena power instead of NSLs. (summary totaly wrong).
2) What happened. The FBI wanted information on a person who had meet with people involved with the bombers in London; that person had a attended chemical classes from NC State. They went to the professors who gave the FBI some information using a subpeona. Some news articles say this happened others say the subpeona was not honored by the university. Anyways he had some papers but was told by FBI HQ Counter-Terrorism Division to stop and the agent returned the papers.
The FBI agent was told a grant jury subpeona was not legal to use and an NSL was the legal method to use, however NSLs do not allow use for educational records so were also illegal. He takes the NSLS to the university they make some calls and do not honor it because it was an NSL asking for educational records. More details at above link along with the offices saying to use a NSL.
FBI comes back to the offices and asks what to do, after some dicussions he is told subpeona was the correct method so back he goes with another one. Univeristy ultimatly complied and handed over the paperwork.
So the problems with this are: Mueller to Congress said that it delayed by 2 days the processing, agents say it delayed by somewhere around 1 day, original request was on July 13 all was done on July 15; the main problem was the NC office did not report the problems and misuse of the NSL in the time frame they should of and during that time the FBI released a press release saying something that because of this incident was false.
Because they built alot of ships including the two sister ships to the Titanic, the HMHS Britannic and the RMS Olympic which did not have problems. :) Harland and Wolff
Here you can read thier definitive history
Problem with that is that BGH, Bolvine growth hormone, is a nature product found in all cow milk. There is no way to make BGH-free milk.
Now if they are talking about rBGH, recombinant BGH, which is injected in cattle to increase milk rate the reason for the law is to prevent consumer fear based on ignorance. If I put two glasses of milk in front of you, with from cows with rBGH injections and one without there is no way you can scientifically tell the difference.
The reason for the laws are that people are using fear and ignorance to stop a product. It is no more evil for this law then for laws that say you cannot advertise a brand of baby food by saying there are no ground up cat and dog meat in your product or you are the only local mortuary that has a 100% guarantee that your workers will not have sex with the corpses.
If they want to do additional advertisement get an organic label, which already means no rBGH or advertise that you do more testing then required by FDA. However both of those don't build on the fear and ignorance of the consumer and don't promote the goals of the anti-GM groups.
The main problem is that there are groups of people who are against any type of GM modified food, the fears range from stories out of Outer Limits to fears that they will increase poverty(you cannot produce the better product no-one wants yours) to loss of diverisity.
As for milk and rBGH it is not the BST that is the main concern but IGF-1, insulin growth factor-1. This is naturally occuring in the human and cow body. High levels of IGF1 has been linked to increased chances of certain types of cancer and mabye the increased chance of giving births to twins. Science has not shown in dietary intake of IGF-1 will increase this amount.
Injecting cows with rBGH may increases the amount of IGF-1 found in milk, some studies have shown an increase but all of the studies have shown that it amount falls within the normal amounts. There is no scientific test that can tell you if the milk you are drinking comes from rBBGH injected cows or not. FYI you would have to drink around 95 quarts of milk, any kind, to equal the amount IGF-1 the average human body produces in day.
Now the reason most countries have banned rBGH has not been IGF-1 but because of a udder infection called mastitis. While this is likly to effect all types of cows it can be more common in rBGH cows because they are milked more often. mastitis prevention is mainly done, in the US, by testing at the farms, testing at the plants and pasturization.
For the US that can work since we generally want to consider all milk and dairy products, (cheese, yogurt,etc) to be dead. We freeze and cool them if there is any type of life(mold) we will toss them. In other parts of the world that is not the case and mastitis can be a problem. FYI test to check for the presence of mastitis are cheap and can be purchased at various lifestock stores on even on the internet.
However with that all said, cows milk is probably one of the worst things you can drink as an adult, it is full of sugar and other things needed by children not adults. As an adult you are better off switching to goat milk or using cow milk just for the cream, cheeses or yogurts.
You have an actual trial or lawsuit showing this is the case, or even some papers from lawyers?
What is the court case or lawsuit that states this? Heck even a letter from a Monsanto lawyer.
There have been many people making this claim but whenever I ask they are never heard from again.
Which is not to say it does not happen just looking for an actual case where Monsanto has used lawyers against someone where this was the case.
The example you showed is NOT a case of crop contaimination.
If you read the decision, not the various sites put up supporting Mr Schmeiser, you find it came about because Mr. Schmeiser identified the round-up resisant plants, then isolated them so they would increase in strength and then saved those seeds. He was deliberatly breeding seeds he knew were contaminated.
Wow you sure don't let the the facts stand in the way of your hate.
If you want to talk about war mongering at least bring in Clinton, under him the US attacked more then 14 different countries a majority of those without any discussion or talk before he attacked. More than both Bush combined.
That the president did not have to abide by treaties was known back in the 1800's and has been backed up by the supreme court in the 1920. So you are probably mixing up the facts again and confusing it with the recent talk about the president having no right to tell states that they have to comply with treaties.
Job wise there has been a growth non-farm jobs of around 5.8 million including the loss of last month. Percentage wise according to the BLS Clinton averaged 5.2% so far Bush has averaged under that, current figures are 4.8%.
The debt is not at 12 trillion, it is under 9.5.
Yes the US has lost some respect because we are not doing what the rest of the countries are telling us what to do. But a large amount of that is just negative articles that spread around the world, two examples.
1) I live in Europe and it is not uncommon to see groups of Americans over here demonstrating against the US and the US president. The Democrate party has admitted that they have funded people to travel to other parts of hte world and talk about the negativies of Bush.
2) Negative media all around, for example the Univerity of Maryland did some counting of the number of time that the US economy was in a recession compared to Clinton when we were actually in a recession to last year, when we were not, there were 78% more negative article for Bush.
There are plenty reasons reasons to bash Bush, his many liberal pushes have been harmful to the US but aleast be truthful.
From what I have heard, news reports, the numbers came from various sites and chat channels where the items are for sale.
Think Geek has one of the items mentioned available for sale in the US.
Limited quantities but listed here
If that is your fear then you should really read the origin of most of the laws and papers that the Bush administration has put out.
For example the US PATRIOT act for the most part just added spying and terrorist to various laws that already existed, made into formal law some actions allowed by the Clinton administration and then reporting requirements as a safeguard. Alot of the items prescribed to it are actually caused by other laws.
I was like you but I then did alot a research and actually read the papers and found that like this summary most of what was being said was really far off from actuality.
But the military and local law enforcement are different.
Hardly a weakening it was a question to lawyers to tell the administration what could or could not be done in military was ever such needed.
Does the military have to follow the same rules and does exigent circumstances apply to the military when they are deployed on US soil with orders to remove an invading force?
From the paper this is quoted from it looks like they do not because the 4th amendment does not apply them in such rare circumstances.
Abdullah al-Muhajir as he prefered to be called was never in Guantanamo and is like the reason you give for him arrested, wrong.
The summary is very poor write up of what happened.
The name of the document containing the response is entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." and was written in September or October 2001, publishing date is end of october 2001.
It was written in response to the question of what the military could legally do if the US was invaded, however the exact instance being described with reference to the 4th admendment is not known; the paper has not been released.
However it makes sence to say the 4th Admendment does not apply to the military if they are deployed on US territory and in the middle of gunfight with known terrorists.
You are reading it correctly, unfortunatly the summary is just wrong.
From what is known of the document it was written right after 9/11 to answer the question what could the military legally could do if we the US territory was invaded by terrorists. While unknown the exact circumsatances the paper discusses, it is currently not released, it would make sense that the 4th admendment does not apply if terrorists are sitting in a house and firing on the US military.
As for what you are discussing with the wiretapping a read of any of the actually papers allowing it, not summaries from various hate groups, shows that the administration used other laws and in multiple cases said that the 4th admendment does apply to what they were doing.