I've always viewed hate speech as when it's against an identifying group that are either engrained or unchangable. For example, blacks cannot be non-black (except Michael Jackson), nor Mexicans non-Mexicon (or not of said decent) and many religions/cultures are rather unchangable. Political learning may be more of a choice depending on viewpoint, which is why I suppose I find speech against racial, gender, sexual or disabled groups most irritating.
I've seen quite a few phones with integrated Mp3 players around lately. Doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me, as I do find having my belt full with mp3 player, personal cell, work pager, pocketknife, etc a little combersome.
My biggest worry, as always, would be battery life. If it has a hard-drive, then running it for a few hours isn't going to do wonders, and then you can't receive calls. A flash-based variety would be best for batteries, but you're still killing the longevity of the phone by needing more regular chargings to top it up after mp3 usage.
One idea that might work is to have a dual-battery system. One for the phone (like Li+), and another small one for the mp3 player. I've got a lyra that goes for most of a day on a AAA, so it wouldn't need to be something that adds much bulk, but would be enough to power a flash-based storage system without many problems (and flash is smaller too).
But a moving object is still traceable, as it will physically disturb the environment around it. A human will trample vegetation, break branches, or leave footprints etc. A tank will leave track prints, stir up a whole lot of dust, and many other such things.
So this technology would be most useful for hiding static vehicles/persons, or perhaps even moreso for hiding buildings (think, a whole, semi-invisible bunker).
I wonder how it would affect sound waves as well. Perhaps sonar would pick up things that radar would not. After all, a mirror or glass might be used to distort or reflect light, but does little against sound...
Yeah, I can think about a lot of spams that are complete b.s., most especially the variants on "company X will pay $10,000 for every forwarded email to you (or some sick kid with 3 heads and 18 toes in Nigeria, etc)" or "the post office is going to levee a charge of $0.10/email on each message sent to cover decreasing postage usage"
Do those count as rumours, and would they be fineable? Unfortunately most of them I don't get from Chinese, but those that spread them need to be hit with a stupid-stick.
This is one thing I've never understood. Some people love GIMP's UI, some hate it. Why has nobody released a fork or update that lets you choose both? After all the massive bitchfests about the UI and the lack of container forms, why not just allow the bloody option to have a choice of enabling some of the the options that people bitch are missing.
Actually, I've always found the mouse panning/zooming rather useful. Use the scroll wheel, and I believe will pan up and down normally, and left+right with CTRL.
Use shift, and you can zoon in and out with the scroll wheel.
(I may have the CTRL/shift functions reversed, but I haven't enabled the scroll wheel on my work-laptop touchpad so I can't test this atm).
From the actual box disclaimer (linked in another's post) it appears that the software is used to monitor and/or distribute how often the in-game ads are viewed, not the browser etc. This bring a few questions:
a) Does said software run when the game isn't running
b) Does it connect on a specific port or to a specific IP (can I block it)
c) Where is this info located besides in-box. If a user has opened the box, most outlets will not accept a return
d) Can somebody give a working link/email for EA's complaints department
Generally the default is to point GRUB at the MBR, but you can in fact install at the head of a partition if you so choose, in which case yes it could be bootstrapped through the windows bootloader.
Mind you, I probably wouldn't want to: A grub boot with a nice splash-screen is a nice way to start things up.
I've had quite a few times where a windows reinstall nuked my linux MBR. The solution, boot from a bootCD and then reinstall grub or whatever. It's not like XP installed, automatically decided to nuke my reiserfs/ext3 partitions for no reason, and wiped my other OS's from existance. An MBR is needed to get into the various OS's installed on the partitions, but having a bootloader overwrite the MBR isn't going to kill the data in those OS's unless it kills the partition table or mangles non-install partitions while it's at it (which no windows I know of does).
The judge compared it to TV, where yes there are bodybuilders with bazookas, but also kids being beaten, taking drugs, are killed (see CSI or many other crime shows), beaten, raped, and various other such things. For that matter, perhaps see: Real Life (tm).
However, TV has already set a bar for which the majority public has accepted. The judge is saying that this game does not exceed or is perhaps under that current level.
Did this actually happened, that he sued the bar and they paid him out? Something is seriously wrong with the legal system (more than I expected), if this is the case.
For some, they don't know how to rip it themselves. For others, they can't be bothered. For still more, they can't get their own "protected" CD's to rip.
I'd stretch to say that poverty is not so related to lesser intelligence as it would be lesser education. Have a look at some of the inventive ways poorer people do tasks that the richer ones buy expensive gizmos for. Furthering that, I'd say that poverty can be related to poor diet and/or lack of proper nutrition. This can also be related to obesity, and will more likely have the long-term effect of some developmental shortcomings.
Yes, I'd worry more about North Korea. Iran seems to be taking steps towards modernising and improving for their citizens. While many reasons might exist to dispute their claims that their nuclear facilities are energy-only, we can hardly say that N. Korea has much likelyhood of wanting nuclear facilities for humanitarian or power-producing reasons.
Now, not that they should have to, but what ways could the adult sites find or use to prevent Zango et al from stealing their links? A couple of thoughts I had would be along the lines of having a timed javascript that runs and corrects the URL's or textboxes, hidden boxes, or cookies etc that contain the site # that zango is stealing.
Indeed, sometimes the standard falls with public perception. If they went after a bunch of people from the Humane Society, many might be up in arms because they associate that group with good intentions and cuddly animals. Now if it's a bunch of adult sites that are targetted.... well they're going after those nasty perverts, and it's not so bad (in the opinion of many).
Adult-site owners and spammers both sell sex for the same reason: it sells. This does not mean that the majority of adult site owners like spam, just that those that send spam like to send sexual content (because it gets them cash).
That's like saying that Apple supports spam because of all the spammers/popup-advertisers that used the bullshit "free iPod" gimmick.
We're omnivores at the top of the food chain, so irradiation of plant and animal life can work it's way up to us more easily, either by subjecting us to contaminated food, or to starvation if food sources die out
Somehow this doesn't track. Yes, due to the large variance of things we eat it's supposedly more possible for us to come into contact with one that is dangerous, but by the same token we don't have a primary food source that - if it were to die or be contaminated - we would die without. If you look at many other animals that tend to "specialize" on certain diets, having one of their primary prey/vegetables is going to be a lot more devstating. For example, in N. America the recent E-coli outbreaks have put a stop on many places carrying spinach, inconvenient for me a I like spinach, but that just means I'm eating more of regular salad and/or other vegetables.
So yeah, we might find that if something near the bottom gets 'infected' it can work its way up to us, but we aren't likely to depend as much on that particular something, and by then one assume the danger would be detected or diluted. If the rabbits in the hills become mostly infected, the wolves are more likely to suffer heavy side-effects.
I wonder, is it possible to request from the judge etc that the case continue, so that you can in fact prove yourself innocent and/or set a precedent (as well as the moral victory). Countersuing's an option too, but I think there's a special procedure for that insome cases, and you could probably also sue for defamation etc.
Between stable, testing, and unstable there are quite a lot of versions. 'Fox doesn't have a lot of dependencies either, so I haven't had many issues with, say, downloading a 1.5 series firefox/testing deb and installing it on a "stable" system.
As far as choices, there's "stable", "testing", "unstable", and "experimental"
IceWeasel is kind of silly as a name,but I'm not sure if it's a shot at firefox or an attempt at an strong contrast (what's the opposite of a fox?). It's also confusing, but if the Mozilla people are going to put the Debian people on the spot about the name (or if they have to), I suppose there's got to be a change. Perhaps "notfirefox" would be better, but hopefully everyone will grow up a little and figure out a solution that works for everyone.
I think a bigger question would be, what have (or had) the parents already done? If their kids are, in fact, running amock without guidance or any supervision/disclipine, then I'd say a nice fine would be a good way to disclipline bad parents. If the parents were in fact taking steps and they weren't working at the time (but they were trying to find a solution), then it's bad enough that they have uncontrollable assholes for kids, but slapping a fine or lawsuit on them is adding insult to injury.
I've seen many sides to this:
- Good parents, with good kids
- Not particularly good parents, but the kids turn out pretty good
- Parents that try hard but have kids who are sneaky, clever, and manage to get into trouble anyhow
- Parents with kids who are borderline psychotic... I've seen parents afraid of their offspring, and they weren't bad parents (sometimes I suppose you just get bad gene mixing)
- Parents that are bad, that have kids that are bad
- Parents that believe their kids are good, could do no wrong, and are pretty much self-delusional
- Parents that are stuggling to support themselves and their kids, and just lack the time/energy for proper supervision (single parents, etc)
- Parents that have a good kid who went bad due to a bad decision, peer pressure, or whatever. Drugs can drag somebody down pretty quick
- Hormones, some people/kids change rather quickly
- Parents that have one good child and one bad (or several of either/both), without apparent reason
As per my usual comment, I work in schools, so I tend to see a lot of kids, teachers, and parents. Some kids are just uneducated in certain ways, but otherwise good (I heard one using a nasty racial slur, but he was very embarrased when he found out what it meant). There are also parents who are jerks... they're the ones that park in the loading zones, bus loops, or whatever, cussing and behaving like morons in front of all the students, and generally think that the earth revolves around them and their offspring (until they get home, and then it's just them).
I can't say what the solution is in this case, and neither can anyone here who doesn't know the parents, kid, and others involved. Life's unpredictable, and who's to say what the full situation is. But I think that the "could YOUR mother do it" is a very fair comment, and a rather insightful one on the part of the attorney. The other comment would be "did the parents even try," which can be pretty hard to determine, but hopefully will come out in the end.
And I'll either grab binaries of firefox from other sources, or compile the source and build my own. I doubt this will kill off firefox for Debian users, I don't have much intent of using IceWeasel.
Yup, it's not just a case of checking the kernel, but checking the program that checks the kernel, etc. There's not really any foolproof way, but it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Actually, what I meant is that it would be unusual for the mother to leave the kid (why drop him off at all, if you're going to run from an abusive husband), so that wouldn't fit with the idea that she had dissappeared voluntarily - in other words foul-play of some sort is more likely. From what further I've read, it does seem that she had many complaints that he was paying more attention to his work and less to family, which was the basis of the divorce, as well as allegations of abuse.
From the further evidence, it doesn't look good for Hans, but I'll leave his fate to the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always viewed hate speech as when it's against an identifying group that are either engrained or unchangable. For example, blacks cannot be non-black (except Michael Jackson), nor Mexicans non-Mexicon (or not of said decent) and many religions/cultures are rather unchangable. Political learning may be more of a choice depending on viewpoint, which is why I suppose I find speech against racial, gender, sexual or disabled groups most irritating.
I've seen quite a few phones with integrated Mp3 players around lately. Doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me, as I do find having my belt full with mp3 player, personal cell, work pager, pocketknife, etc a little combersome.
My biggest worry, as always, would be battery life. If it has a hard-drive, then running it for a few hours isn't going to do wonders, and then you can't receive calls. A flash-based variety would be best for batteries, but you're still killing the longevity of the phone by needing more regular chargings to top it up after mp3 usage.
One idea that might work is to have a dual-battery system. One for the phone (like Li+), and another small one for the mp3 player. I've got a lyra that goes for most of a day on a AAA, so it wouldn't need to be something that adds much bulk, but would be enough to power a flash-based storage system without many problems (and flash is smaller too).
But a moving object is still traceable, as it will physically disturb the environment around it. A human will trample vegetation, break branches, or leave footprints etc. A tank will leave track prints, stir up a whole lot of dust, and many other such things.
So this technology would be most useful for hiding static vehicles/persons, or perhaps even moreso for hiding buildings (think, a whole, semi-invisible bunker).
I wonder how it would affect sound waves as well. Perhaps sonar would pick up things that radar would not. After all, a mirror or glass might be used to distort or reflect light, but does little against sound...
Yeah, I can think about a lot of spams that are complete b.s., most especially the variants on "company X will pay $10,000 for every forwarded email to you (or some sick kid with 3 heads and 18 toes in Nigeria, etc)" or "the post office is going to levee a charge of $0.10/email on each message sent to cover decreasing postage usage"
Do those count as rumours, and would they be fineable? Unfortunately most of them I don't get from Chinese, but those that spread them need to be hit with a stupid-stick.
This is one thing I've never understood. Some people love GIMP's UI, some hate it. Why has nobody released a fork or update that lets you choose both? After all the massive bitchfests about the UI and the lack of container forms, why not just allow the bloody option to have a choice of enabling some of the the options that people bitch are missing.
Actually, I've always found the mouse panning/zooming rather useful. Use the scroll wheel, and I believe will pan up and down normally, and left+right with CTRL.
Use shift, and you can zoon in and out with the scroll wheel.
(I may have the CTRL/shift functions reversed, but I haven't enabled the scroll wheel on my work-laptop touchpad so I can't test this atm).
From the actual box disclaimer (linked in another's post) it appears that the software is used to monitor and/or distribute how often the in-game ads are viewed, not the browser etc. This bring a few questions:
a) Does said software run when the game isn't running
b) Does it connect on a specific port or to a specific IP (can I block it)
c) Where is this info located besides in-box. If a user has opened the box, most outlets will not accept a return
d) Can somebody give a working link/email for EA's complaints department
Generally the default is to point GRUB at the MBR, but you can in fact install at the head of a partition if you so choose, in which case yes it could be bootstrapped through the windows bootloader.
Mind you, I probably wouldn't want to: A grub boot with a nice splash-screen is a nice way to start things up.
I've had quite a few times where a windows reinstall nuked my linux MBR. The solution, boot from a bootCD and then reinstall grub or whatever. It's not like XP installed, automatically decided to nuke my reiserfs/ext3 partitions for no reason, and wiped my other OS's from existance. An MBR is needed to get into the various OS's installed on the partitions, but having a bootloader overwrite the MBR isn't going to kill the data in those OS's unless it kills the partition table or mangles non-install partitions while it's at it (which no windows I know of does).
Nah, just have then check off the "I am not a sex offender" checkbox
The judge compared it to TV, where yes there are bodybuilders with bazookas, but also kids being beaten, taking drugs, are killed (see CSI or many other crime shows), beaten, raped, and various other such things. For that matter, perhaps see: Real Life (tm).
However, TV has already set a bar for which the majority public has accepted. The judge is saying that this game does not exceed or is perhaps under that current level.
Did this actually happened, that he sued the bar and they paid him out? Something is seriously wrong with the legal system (more than I expected), if this is the case.
For some, they don't know how to rip it themselves. For others, they can't be bothered. For still more, they can't get their own "protected" CD's to rip.
I'd stretch to say that poverty is not so related to lesser intelligence as it would be lesser education. Have a look at some of the inventive ways poorer people do tasks that the richer ones buy expensive gizmos for. Furthering that, I'd say that poverty can be related to poor diet and/or lack of proper nutrition. This can also be related to obesity, and will more likely have the long-term effect of some developmental shortcomings.
Yes, I'd worry more about North Korea. Iran seems to be taking steps towards modernising and improving for their citizens. While many reasons might exist to dispute their claims that their nuclear facilities are energy-only, we can hardly say that N. Korea has much likelyhood of wanting nuclear facilities for humanitarian or power-producing reasons.
Now, not that they should have to, but what ways could the adult sites find or use to prevent Zango et al from stealing their links? A couple of thoughts I had would be along the lines of having a timed javascript that runs and corrects the URL's or textboxes, hidden boxes, or cookies etc that contain the site # that zango is stealing.
Indeed, sometimes the standard falls with public perception. If they went after a bunch of people from the Humane Society, many might be up in arms because they associate that group with good intentions and cuddly animals. Now if it's a bunch of adult sites that are targetted.... well they're going after those nasty perverts, and it's not so bad (in the opinion of many).
Adult-site owners and spammers both sell sex for the same reason: it sells. This does not mean that the majority of adult site owners like spam, just that those that send spam like to send sexual content (because it gets them cash).
That's like saying that Apple supports spam because of all the spammers/popup-advertisers that used the bullshit "free iPod" gimmick.
We're omnivores at the top of the food chain, so irradiation of plant and animal life can work it's way up to us more easily, either by subjecting us to contaminated food, or to starvation if food sources die out
Somehow this doesn't track. Yes, due to the large variance of things we eat it's supposedly more possible for us to come into contact with one that is dangerous, but by the same token we don't have a primary food source that - if it were to die or be contaminated - we would die without. If you look at many other animals that tend to "specialize" on certain diets, having one of their primary prey/vegetables is going to be a lot more devstating. For example, in N. America the recent E-coli outbreaks have put a stop on many places carrying spinach, inconvenient for me a I like spinach, but that just means I'm eating more of regular salad and/or other vegetables.
So yeah, we might find that if something near the bottom gets 'infected' it can work its way up to us, but we aren't likely to depend as much on that particular something, and by then one assume the danger would be detected or diluted. If the rabbits in the hills become mostly infected, the wolves are more likely to suffer heavy side-effects.
I wonder, is it possible to request from the judge etc that the case continue, so that you can in fact prove yourself innocent and/or set a precedent (as well as the moral victory). Countersuing's an option too, but I think there's a special procedure for that insome cases, and you could probably also sue for defamation etc.
Between stable, testing, and unstable there are quite a lot of versions. 'Fox doesn't have a lot of dependencies either, so I haven't had many issues with, say, downloading a 1.5 series firefox/testing deb and installing it on a "stable" system.
As far as choices, there's "stable", "testing", "unstable", and "experimental"
IceWeasel is kind of silly as a name,but I'm not sure if it's a shot at firefox or an attempt at an strong contrast (what's the opposite of a fox?). It's also confusing, but if the Mozilla people are going to put the Debian people on the spot about the name (or if they have to), I suppose there's got to be a change. Perhaps "notfirefox" would be better, but hopefully everyone will grow up a little and figure out a solution that works for everyone.
I think a bigger question would be, what have (or had) the parents already done? If their kids are, in fact, running amock without guidance or any supervision/disclipine, then I'd say a nice fine would be a good way to disclipline bad parents. If the parents were in fact taking steps and they weren't working at the time (but they were trying to find a solution), then it's bad enough that they have uncontrollable assholes for kids, but slapping a fine or lawsuit on them is adding insult to injury.
I've seen many sides to this:
- Good parents, with good kids
- Not particularly good parents, but the kids turn out pretty good
- Parents that try hard but have kids who are sneaky, clever, and manage to get into trouble anyhow
- Parents with kids who are borderline psychotic... I've seen parents afraid of their offspring, and they weren't bad parents (sometimes I suppose you just get bad gene mixing)
- Parents that are bad, that have kids that are bad
- Parents that believe their kids are good, could do no wrong, and are pretty much self-delusional
- Parents that are stuggling to support themselves and their kids, and just lack the time/energy for proper supervision (single parents, etc)
- Parents that have a good kid who went bad due to a bad decision, peer pressure, or whatever. Drugs can drag somebody down pretty quick
- Hormones, some people/kids change rather quickly
- Parents that have one good child and one bad (or several of either/both), without apparent reason
As per my usual comment, I work in schools, so I tend to see a lot of kids, teachers, and parents. Some kids are just uneducated in certain ways, but otherwise good (I heard one using a nasty racial slur, but he was very embarrased when he found out what it meant). There are also parents who are jerks... they're the ones that park in the loading zones, bus loops, or whatever, cussing and behaving like morons in front of all the students, and generally think that the earth revolves around them and their offspring (until they get home, and then it's just them).
I can't say what the solution is in this case, and neither can anyone here who doesn't know the parents, kid, and others involved. Life's unpredictable, and who's to say what the full situation is. But I think that the "could YOUR mother do it" is a very fair comment, and a rather insightful one on the part of the attorney. The other comment would be "did the parents even try," which can be pretty hard to determine, but hopefully will come out in the end.
And I'll either grab binaries of firefox from other sources, or compile the source and build my own. I doubt this will kill off firefox for Debian users, I don't have much intent of using IceWeasel.
Yup, it's not just a case of checking the kernel, but checking the program that checks the kernel, etc. There's not really any foolproof way, but it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Actually, what I meant is that it would be unusual for the mother to leave the kid (why drop him off at all, if you're going to run from an abusive husband), so that wouldn't fit with the idea that she had dissappeared voluntarily - in other words foul-play of some sort is more likely. From what further I've read, it does seem that she had many complaints that he was paying more attention to his work and less to family, which was the basis of the divorce, as well as allegations of abuse.
From the further evidence, it doesn't look good for Hans, but I'll leave his fate to the courts.