No free and useful service should depend on intentionally obstructing my exercise of basic fair use rights, among which is the ability to copy text from the screen. Preventing me from copy-pasting a page of a book at a time, particularly when they already restrict me from viewing more than 20% of a book at once, is not by any stretch of the imagination necessary. If it weren't possible, the suits would sign up for the service anyway.
God, how I hate the "Owning ideas is a moral right," the "Copyright must be absolute" attitude that is so prevalent among idiots like yourself.
Oh of course they're allowed to implement DRM, just like we're allowed to try to circumvent it. Naturally YOU don't have to circumvent it if you don't want to, but when you try to prescribe MY behavior, I'll reserve a simple "fuck you, no" as a response.
Maybe "y'all" isn't pushing a political cause -- maybe we're really interested in the truth. And if the truth is that the white house lied, then we should say it, even if it means alienating undecided voters. In my opinion, what is described is certainly lying, not disputing, and the blurb was therefore correctly worded.
If 51% of the country wants one candidate over the other, why the fuck should it matter how many sheep the other 49% own? Sorry if this comes across as more than a little defensive, but realize that what you're saying is "popular vote doesn't work because we rural folk are more important than the rest." Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that's how it comes out mathematically.
Land doesn't get to vote. Farm animals don't get to vote. Stalks of corn don't get political voice. It's CITIZENS that vote. At least, that's how it should be -- and WOULD be, except for goddamn slavery politics.
Please. Filesharing today has come to mean the illicit sharing of copyrighted works, usually music. It's semantic shift. It would be just as disingenuous to ask, "Could you possibly explain what is different between being joyful and being gay?" The fact that they ONCE meant the same thing says little about what they mean today.
That IS the purpose of the Electoral College, you know. Because the founding fathers thought he'd be smarter than you.
Re:MUCH Stiffer Penalties Needed!
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 1
So what do you do in the rare case where someone can't be reformed? You need to get them off the streets, right? Where do you put them?
You could kill them or lock them in prisons or mental institutions... but you seem unwilling to accept that: "If it's ever at all nessecary to remove someone from the general populace, it should be done with the expectation that they can be rehabilitated and reintroduced, safely, back into the public."
Refusing to accept that some people can never be safely reintroduced to society is not only foolish, it's dangerous.
Why should that be legal? It's certainly not a victimless way to defend yourself from muggers: the counterfeit bills will end up back in circulation and cause all the problems that standard counterfeiting causes.
If you're really desperate to defend against muggers, carry a fake wallet. Fill it with promotional credit cards that haven't been activated or have expired. Stick a wad of ones in it. Give that to a mugger, and keep your real one in the knee pocket in a pair of cargo pants.
'Laser' WAS an acronym. Now it's vernacular. Get over yourself.:)
Re:playing the lottery is not stupid
on
Odds-on Science
·
· Score: 1
No way, man. Sure -- the expected winnings of a ticket are far, far less than what you pay for it -- but that's also true of insurance. So is everyone who buys insurance acting irrationally?
No. We all have different attitudes toward risk. We tend to be quite averse to negative risk, so we have insurance to share and mitigate it. We tend to be quite attracted to positive risk, so we buy lottery tickets and gamble.
If you are as risk-neutral as you think you are and care only about the expected value of a game, then consider the following game.
We flip a coin. If it's tails, you lose your entire life savings. You lose your house, your car, everything. If it's heads, you double your net worth. Plus I give you an extra dollar. And that much is truly a matter of taste.
In terms of expected value, this seems like it's a good deal to make: your expected gain is fifty cents. But if I have an infinite bankroll, I can play the game with you over and over until you lose. To play each game seems like a rational decision to you, but you are guaranteed to lose everything before we stop.
This is why the risk must be accounted for. If someone is attracted enough to really high potential gains, it might be quite rational for her to purchase a lottery ticket.
Porn is not a cancer on free speech. It is a perfectly acceptable, completely victimless way for adults to enjoy themselves. The only problem is you puritans who are out to ruin life for the rest of us.:P
this certainly looks like the way forward for OTP and key distribution.
Bah. Just load up a couple terrabytes' RAID with OTP and drive it over yourself. You'd only need to do it once per year or so, and it can be over any distance. It's also just as unbreakable and a lot cheaper than quantum hocus-pocus.
the fact that they're unbreakable means nothing next to the requirement that you must have a secure channel for the key... why not just use that to send the message in plaintext, if it's secure?
Because you can exchange the key at any time. It stays good until you use it. So if you're a soldier heading into the field, your commander might hand you a CD-R with your key. You're face to face, so that's a secure transaction. But once you're in the field and plans start changing, you can update your commander by radioing back your comments encrypted by the pad.
For most purposes today, I think we all agree that public/private key systems are superior. If you don't believe in the integrity of the encryption algorithms, though, or if you expect the entire NSA to try to crack your message, or if you want it to remain secure until the end of time, you may as well use a OTP.
Well they're all men, for one thing. I think profiling should be killed on the basis of Equal Protection (via the 14th amendment), not because of efficacy arguments.
Explain to me: if your religion forbids you from donating organs, how can it let you accept them? If that's the case, the religion is fucked up: morally wrong, corrupt, unsustainable, and not worthy of legal protection.
I could start a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes, but I don't think the IRS will be very accommodating...
Oh calm down. There are no countries in the world that you would classify as "third-world shitholes"? I hardly said "everyplace except america is a shithole."
It's really not much of a contradiction. Imagine there's exactly one little shithole of a third-world country that refuses to adopt any U.S. laws. Then everyone there can spam us to oblivion, but the only way to escape U.S. patents is to live in that shithole country. And even if you did, you'd only have access to what the shithole country could produce internally, which would be mud and spam.:)
Seems to me they issue this sort of announcement every other Tuesday. How many times now has NASA gone through this "we're gonna get rid of Hubble... we're gonna do it... PSYCH!" dance?
The cynical side of me says that they're holding it hostage for better funding and popular support, because it's such an icon. The last time they announced that they were junking it I didn't believe them for a second... and now, surprise, looks like it has a new lease on life.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the only way to age is to level up a skill. Well, there's one mission that will age you anywhere from 0-2 years, but that's it.
No free and useful service should depend on intentionally obstructing my exercise of basic fair use rights, among which is the ability to copy text from the screen. Preventing me from copy-pasting a page of a book at a time, particularly when they already restrict me from viewing more than 20% of a book at once, is not by any stretch of the imagination necessary. If it weren't possible, the suits would sign up for the service anyway.
God, how I hate the "Owning ideas is a moral right," the "Copyright must be absolute" attitude that is so prevalent among idiots like yourself.
Oh of course they're allowed to implement DRM, just like we're allowed to try to circumvent it. Naturally YOU don't have to circumvent it if you don't want to, but when you try to prescribe MY behavior, I'll reserve a simple "fuck you, no" as a response.
Maybe "y'all" isn't pushing a political cause -- maybe we're really interested in the truth. And if the truth is that the white house lied, then we should say it, even if it means alienating undecided voters. In my opinion, what is described is certainly lying, not disputing, and the blurb was therefore correctly worded.
So the fuck what?
If 51% of the country wants one candidate over the other, why the fuck should it matter how many sheep the other 49% own? Sorry if this comes across as more than a little defensive, but realize that what you're saying is "popular vote doesn't work because we rural folk are more important than the rest." Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that's how it comes out mathematically.
Land doesn't get to vote. Farm animals don't get to vote. Stalks of corn don't get political voice. It's CITIZENS that vote. At least, that's how it should be -- and WOULD be, except for goddamn slavery politics.
Please. Filesharing today has come to mean the illicit sharing of copyrighted works, usually music. It's semantic shift. It would be just as disingenuous to ask, "Could you possibly explain what is different between being joyful and being gay?" The fact that they ONCE meant the same thing says little about what they mean today.
That IS the purpose of the Electoral College, you know. Because the founding fathers thought he'd be smarter than you.
So what do you do in the rare case where someone can't be reformed? You need to get them off the streets, right? Where do you put them?
You could kill them or lock them in prisons or mental institutions... but you seem unwilling to accept that: "If it's ever at all nessecary to remove someone from the general populace, it should be done with the expectation that they can be rehabilitated and reintroduced, safely, back into the public."
Refusing to accept that some people can never be safely reintroduced to society is not only foolish, it's dangerous.
Why should that be legal? It's certainly not a victimless way to defend yourself from muggers: the counterfeit bills will end up back in circulation and cause all the problems that standard counterfeiting causes.
If you're really desperate to defend against muggers, carry a fake wallet. Fill it with promotional credit cards that haven't been activated or have expired. Stick a wad of ones in it. Give that to a mugger, and keep your real one in the knee pocket in a pair of cargo pants.
Hmm. I just followed your link, and your malicious edit had already been wiped.
It seems to me this is testimony to Wikipedia's resistance to misinformation -- a far cry from what you were suggesting.
'Laser' WAS an acronym. Now it's vernacular. Get over yourself. :)
No way, man. Sure -- the expected winnings of a ticket are far, far less than what you pay for it -- but that's also true of insurance. So is everyone who buys insurance acting irrationally?
No. We all have different attitudes toward risk. We tend to be quite averse to negative risk, so we have insurance to share and mitigate it. We tend to be quite attracted to positive risk, so we buy lottery tickets and gamble.
If you are as risk-neutral as you think you are and care only about the expected value of a game, then consider the following game.
We flip a coin. If it's tails, you lose your entire life savings. You lose your house, your car, everything. If it's heads, you double your net worth. Plus I give you an extra dollar. And that much is truly a matter of taste.
In terms of expected value, this seems like it's a good deal to make: your expected gain is fifty cents. But if I have an infinite bankroll, I can play the game with you over and over until you lose. To play each game seems like a rational decision to you, but you are guaranteed to lose everything before we stop.
This is why the risk must be accounted for. If someone is attracted enough to really high potential gains, it might be quite rational for her to purchase a lottery ticket.
Porn is not a cancer on free speech. It is a perfectly acceptable, completely victimless way for adults to enjoy themselves. The only problem is you puritans who are out to ruin life for the rest of us. :P
The dollar. Currency, at its simplest form, is proof of value to society: work.
Meh, they'd just release a new version of BT that used a different hash function.
And if ALL hash functions were broken, the ??AA would be the least of our worries.
Bah. Just load up a couple terrabytes' RAID with OTP and drive it over yourself. You'd only need to do it once per year or so, and it can be over any distance. It's also just as unbreakable and a lot cheaper than quantum hocus-pocus.
Bad idea. Then everyone has access to the key. Your only protection is hoping other people won't guess which CD it is: security through obscurity.
Better to use GPG in your situation.
Because you can exchange the key at any time. It stays good until you use it. So if you're a soldier heading into the field, your commander might hand you a CD-R with your key. You're face to face, so that's a secure transaction. But once you're in the field and plans start changing, you can update your commander by radioing back your comments encrypted by the pad.
For most purposes today, I think we all agree that public/private key systems are superior. If you don't believe in the integrity of the encryption algorithms, though, or if you expect the entire NSA to try to crack your message, or if you want it to remain secure until the end of time, you may as well use a OTP.
Well they're all men, for one thing. I think profiling should be killed on the basis of Equal Protection (via the 14th amendment), not because of efficacy arguments.
Explain to me: if your religion forbids you from donating organs, how can it let you accept them? If that's the case, the religion is fucked up: morally wrong, corrupt, unsustainable, and not worthy of legal protection.
I could start a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes, but I don't think the IRS will be very accommodating...
And if I had to shoot ten random strangers in the head to save my younger brother's life, I'd do it. But that doesn't make it right.
What Todd did was morally wrong.
Or you can be both.
Oh calm down. There are no countries in the world that you would classify as "third-world shitholes"? I hardly said "everyplace except america is a shithole."
It's really not much of a contradiction. Imagine there's exactly one little shithole of a third-world country that refuses to adopt any U.S. laws. Then everyone there can spam us to oblivion, but the only way to escape U.S. patents is to live in that shithole country. And even if you did, you'd only have access to what the shithole country could produce internally, which would be mud and spam. :)
Seems to me they issue this sort of announcement every other Tuesday. How many times now has NASA gone through this "we're gonna get rid of Hubble... we're gonna do it... PSYCH!" dance?
The cynical side of me says that they're holding it hostage for better funding and popular support, because it's such an icon. The last time they announced that they were junking it I didn't believe them for a second... and now, surprise, looks like it has a new lease on life.