The methods used on such shows are hokey at best. If they were serious in the slightest they would have redundant, different-brand pieces of equipment at each location to cross-match their all their evidence (especially "EVPs"). They would never reuse any media, especially analog media (magnetic audio tapes anyone?). They would put new media through some kind of special scrub to ensure there are no pre-existing artifacts. Every piece of electronic equipment would be surrounded by an individual, redundantly grounded Faraday cage. They would give up on the temperature sensing all together because until they can hermetically seal and thermally isolate the building (per The First Law, good luck with that) it means there's a draft or A/C vent nearby. They would let the EMF readings be further evidence they should be using Faraday cages. And they would stop claiming bugs and random pieces of dust are "orbs", give me a break. Lastly they would get the hell out of the place so their compromised psyche can stop feeling "touched" and yielding no real data.
Then again, if they did these things they probably wouldn't have much, if anything, to put on TV to sell commercials.
Wow...if you have actually watched the "Ghost Hunters" show, you would know that:
TAPS generally discounts orbs as dust, bugs, or lens flare. The co-founders of TAPS are extremely skeptical of orbs.
Typically their crew is often seen using a variety of branded equipment. Although some equipment does use magnetic media such as tapes, most of their equipment uses digital recording technologies.
So called 'Personal Experiences' ie. touching, hair standing on end, cold spots, etc are not taken as evidence alone, they must at least be backed up with something they can record somehow.
While anyone can edit tapes, etc and in no case in any so called "paranormal investigation" could anyone ever know if they are being defrauded unless they are physically present at the investigation - the TAPS team at least depicts their debunking attempts, as well as throwing out things they consider compromised.
I went on a 'ghost hunt' aboard the Queen Mary with a guy that claims to do work similar to what the TAPS team does. He genuinely shocked that only a fraction of the people that came in (including myself *SMUG!!*) brought a flashlight.
Just as a note on this, the TAPS team investigated the Queen Mary, and they determined that someone had tampered with their investigation.
Nah, This guy is just next in line for the job. Leave it to Obama-nation to come up with another "position". More of my tax money for another stupid program run by stupid people for the benefit of the Federal Employees and the Obama ra ra section of the major media. And worst of all, some of you actually thing it is a good idea. Obviously you have head buried someplace dark, smelly and damp for the last 2 years.
Get a grip...
Oh please please please MOD THIS UP
My kingdom for some mod points!!!!
I most certainly did not make that assertion. Of course it does. However I don't view the human mind as something that is unable to change anything it learns as a child. "Because that's how I was raised" is the weakest excuse someone could ever have for maintaining a life philosophy or personal beliefs. If you disagree with that, then I feel sorry for you as you can not possibly turn away from something that you might not truly believe, no matter what other points of view have been presented to you since childhood.
It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.
I don't think this is completely true. You are correct, parents generally attempt to influence their children's religious beliefs at a young age, and religions provide means of education, indoctrination, and initiation of members from birth. I think brainwashing might not be the right word for this. However I also believe that as adults we all have the ability to learn, expand our minds, challenge the world around them, etc which usually leads to things like higher education and otherwise exploring different ideas about everything. I was raised Catholic, that is what I follow to this day, but not simply because that's what I was indoctrinated with as a child...as an adult I had questions, looked to challenge some of those ideas and challenging those ideas for me actually strengthened my faith.
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...
Just one thing about the whole "right vs wrong God" thing...the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam - are there any others I can't think of? Maybe even Zoroasterism?) all worship the same God, even if some of the more fringe, radical types of people don't want to accept it. Just because a particular radical Muslim, for example, might believe that worshipping Allah is not the same thing as worshipping the Christian God, it doesn't mean they aren't doing it in reality. I might be able to stretch this a bit further by saying that maybe even some polytheistic religions are actually worshipping the same God I point to here, but they may simply incorrectly see other powerful spiritual beings as "gods". Catholicism gets a bad rap for this, some people seem to think that we worship angels and saints...this view is not correct. However maybe some of these polytheistic religions are looking at angels, saints, etc as "other gods". While God may not be man-made, religion is and therefore must be flawed in one or more aspects of each religion man creates. However the rest of what you say makes sense and surely is a possibility, except when you consider what you write next...
I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.
Now here is the big selling point for Christianity that seems to be lost on most people (including many Christians). Christianity is the new covenant between God and humanity. The concepts that are central to the Christian faith is this: God is perfect. God has created imperfect beings. God formed a new covenant with humanity and decided to be present among us in the form of a "human son" to teach us about this new covenant, about our imperfection, and eventually our salvation. The new covenant was sealed with the death of Christ on the cross, an event people commonly refer to as "Christ's personal sacrifice / death on the cross for our sins". The whole point of this exercise was for God to show us that he loves us so much that he sent his one and only son to "save" us from the devil, Hell, etc. (BTW: I really don't like the concept of
I agree with this, also you can look up what you just heard on WQXR on their website and click a link to ArchivMusic which will allow you to buy the recording of what you just heard. I haven't used it yet, but if you are looking for a very specific recording WQXR's site is a great reference to find the recording and find a way to buy it.
Why can't different religions be right at the same time? Sure they can all be wrong, but you make the issue way too black and white. There are probably religions that are 100% wrong. I doubt any religion is 100% right, but sure, it could be possible. However a bunch of different religions could be right in one way or another without being completely perfect. BTW, when I say "religion" I also include the differences between denominations that have the same "base religion" so to speak...some can be so different they might as well be different religions.
um, arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Being a language nazi makes you doubly so.
"The watering-down of titles for the Wii certainly isn't universal. Almost every game released by Nintendo is solid. The story lines are outstanding, the controls capture the essence of the Wiimote, and the graphics are just fine.
Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess immediately come to mind when I think of Wii games that aren't watered down. They are stellar titles that anyone should play. And they match any full-featured game on other consoles.
The same can be said for the vast majority of titles built exclusively for the Wii. Punch Out was great. Wii Sports provides an incredibly fun experience. Simply put, there are a variety of compelling games on the Wii that still make it a worthwhile console.
But unfortunately, the vast majority of those full-feature Wii games have been developed by Nintendo. The reality is that many third-party developers haven't been able to capture the true power of the Wii and thus water down their games to bring them to the popular console. If gamers want the best experience for those games, they'll need to play them on another console."
So in other words, the problem is not the Wii, it's the capability of the developers? Why is it the Wii's fault that third party developers water down games because they can't
develop properly for the Wii? Do third party developers not have all the tools, knowledge, etc they need to develop for the Wii? Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the "best" titles (I hope not!) Based on this paragraph, I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same.
but may I ask: what is the real benefit to totally handcoding a site as opposed to using web design applications? I really like the ability to create a layout in Fireworks and then have that imported into Dreamweaver where I can continue to design graphically or code by hand where I feel it is necessary. I can see what it will look like instantly in the WYSIWYG, and then test it in the million different browsers I have installed on my system. Some of us do not want to code our sites 60 hours a week, we want to spend the time on figuring out the actual look and feel of the site, writing copy, editing graphics, etc. Maybe if you have a full team of developers and a marketing department its a different story...marketing writes the copy, creates the images, has the concept for the layout of the site, and then developers just code it to marketing's specs.
But many organizations, especially small businesses that like to do things in-house don't have those luxuries. I have been in the position of being responsible for ALL ASPECTS of a corporate site, from copy to images to layout and coding. Many people in positions like mine love the ability to quickly put together the site, have an automated tool tell me the code is compliant to whatever standard I desire, and then dive into the code where I see things just aren't right, or to write the dynamic portions of the site that can't be put together in a WYSIWYG environment. Tools like Dreamweaver (especially Dreamweaver, I've used it since Dreameaver MX) and really the entire Macromedia Studio/Adobe Web Design package as a whole have been a Godsend.
Ultimately if the page looks great, runs well, is secure, built quickly, cost effective, and meets all the requirements of the organization or customer, what's the problem? Other than personal ego and bragging rights (neither of which have anything to do with creating a website), I don't see the big deal.
You, sir, should be modded up to the sky, as this is the best explanation I have ever seen concerning the "nature of Linux" as you describe it.
However might I add that Linux can still keep this identity despite things like merging distros, LSB, making connections to the non-free world, non-free components, etc. You mentoned Red Hat but not Ubuntu, but I will use Ubuntu as my example.
For example, Ubuntu is Debian, except that Ubuntu has been willing to play nice with corporations and put some real money and business sense behind it...which includes helping to drive the development and supply of non-free/restricted drivers. Ubuntu is still Linux if, for example, someone at Canonical got Linux Mint to close shop because they might "create confusion among distros". Having your own distribution does not make you any more or less of a contributor to Linux or the Open Source movement. If there were no metadistributions of Ubuntu and Ubuntu somehow caused that, it does not cease to be Linux. Some could say the same about Ubuntu vs. Debian as well...but the difference is the people involved with Ubuntu would not be able to do what it is doing if they were part of the Debian organization. Many minor distros can not make this argument. I believe minor or metadistros help Linux when they do something that can not be done by simply being a contributor to the parent distribution. Otherwise they do not.
Despite this and other things, I don't believe that Ubuntu (as an example) has gone far enough away from the "Nature of Linux" to say that it is no longer Linux. They seem to straddle the line between "Linux" and "Linux-like thing but not Linux" pretty well. It is almost completely free/open source and plays well with the open source community. What is non-free, closed or proprietary is not forced on the user - I can have a completely FOSS box and still run Ubuntu. Changes have been made to "improve" the user experience/ease of use for joe user without throwing away that which your typical Linux hacker holds dear. While I use GNOME, I am not forced to keep it. While I use Firefox, I can dump it and use Iceweasel instead, and do so with ease. I believe Linux as the beacon of software freedom and choice not only continues to exist - it has been enhanced through vendors/distros such as Ubuntu.
However I agree with your view that OSX is not BSD. It certainly is possible for a vendor to take Linux/BSD far enough away from its roots to say that it is no longer that thing. I'm not quite sure at what point that line is crossed, but I believe Red hat and Ubuntu are dancing on that line; Apple has jumped over it.
So let the bank get robbed because insurance will pay out? That is pretty weak. Shit rolls downhill. Banks are insured, insurance costs money. Insurance costs go up when perceived risk goes up, to the detriment of non-rich bank customers who lose money in the form of reduced interest rates and increased fees to cover new insurance premiums as well as increased security. Federal money also covers bank account funds, so the non-rich taxpayers all over the place can lose out there. In modern times, a bank robbery can also include theft of non-rich personal financial information which has value. Safe deposit boxes at banks also contain physical property that has great value, monetary or otherwise. Plenty of non-rich have those as well. Insurance can compensate for these things, but can never truly replace things like private information or family relics.
I wasn't trying to imply that someone could steal my house by robbing a bank, and I realize now that it sounded like that. The intent simply was to further express how banks are tied to non-rich people. Plenty of non-rich people do business with banks, even if it is just for their mortgage.
Um, if that statement was supposed to imply that catching a bank robber is only to protect the rich, then your argument is flawed. Non-rich people keep money in banks too. I certainly am not rich, yet I have the vast majority of my money in banks. The bank also owns the home I live in for another 20-something years. Plenty of rich and non-rich people live this way. So if joe bank robber rips off the bank, that one action has affected hundreds, if not thousands, of both rich and non-rich people (as well as businesses which provide wages to rich and non-rich people) that may have money there. If a car thief steals a car and and chops it, that thief affected one person that may or may not be rich. Even the government has limited resources...protecting banks by catching bank robbers helps a much greater number of people than shutting down a bunch of chop shops.
Additionally, If bank robberies became less of a priority than chop shops, you would simply see a shift in crime from boosting cars to robbing banks (as per your example) as criminals would eventually realize a greater return on their crime with a lower risk of getting caught. After all, (under the conditions of law enforcement concentrating on chop shops instead of banks) if you were going to steal something, would you steal ten cars with a high chance of getting caught stealing and selling the parts, or would you rob a bank from which you might see greater value for your actions, with a lower chance of getting caught?
Why do you sound shocked or upset that the severity of a crime increases with the value of the target? If I had a choice of stealing a few cars to make lets say $50,000 on the parts or robbing a bank of $100,000 cash that might make up the combined bank accounts of lets say 50 non-rich people in my local community bank, but knew that I would spend a year in jail for either one if I got caught, why wouldn't I try for the $100,000 If I stand to receive the same punishment? Stealing the $100,000 potentially does much greater damage to a greater number of people, and lack of a threat of a greater punishment for that action encourages that.
Even if IP addresses are removed or changed, search history is still not anonymous unless the records of search results get shuffled together. As long as all the search terms and results from one address are kept together in one record or otherwise tied to a unique identifier of any kind, your search habits and results can still be traced back to you. Anonymous search data is a myth.
If the AF can claim they did it for any of the following reasons, they are exempt from the DMCA:
`(e) LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES- This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term `information security' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
HAHAHAHA Obama votes against a large portion of his supporter's will, both expanding surveillance and providing immunity to large corporations from criminal lawsuits! HAHAHAHA There's your change! How do you like your precious Obama now???
...as they force non-online mail order companies to collect taxes from out of state buyers. There is no difference between online sellers and a brick and mortar mail order business that sends a catalog to an out of state resident. If you live in the state in which the business resides, that business must collect taxes from you. Many mail order companies specify that when filling out an order form, the buyer must include the specified tax if they are a resident of that state. If I live in NY and buy something from a mail order company in PA, I do not pay PA taxes. However most states, if not all, do require their citizens pay their state's sales tax on things they order via mail order. However this is completely unenforceable and if a state does collect those taxes, it is because the citizen voluntarily pays the taxes. How many people do you think volunteer to pay these unenforcable taxes????
In NJ there was a big deal about people who travel to native american reservations to buy cigarettes because they do not charge state taxes (a few dollars a pack for NJ cigarette taxes), and NJ is hurting for money bad so they tried to find ways to get the money from smokers that dodge these taxes. I don't think they were very successful.
There is no difference between collecting taxes in any of these situations...it is unenforceable, and a state can not force a business that does not reside in their borders or operate under their jurisdiction to collect their state's taxes, no matter if the sale is conducted through a web site, a magazine, or a catalog.
Admittedly, I've not tried for a job at Google or Sun. However, I've had no trouble finding good work, and interviewers are usually impressed by the college I graduated from.
I tried for a job with Sun. Got it too. I double majored at a small liberal arts college that my manager never heard of, and I even beat out H1Bs.
Slashdot Mirror
The methods used on such shows are hokey at best. If they were serious in the slightest they would have redundant, different-brand pieces of equipment at each location to cross-match their all their evidence (especially "EVPs"). They would never reuse any media, especially analog media (magnetic audio tapes anyone?). They would put new media through some kind of special scrub to ensure there are no pre-existing artifacts. Every piece of electronic equipment would be surrounded by an individual, redundantly grounded Faraday cage. They would give up on the temperature sensing all together because until they can hermetically seal and thermally isolate the building (per The First Law, good luck with that) it means there's a draft or A/C vent nearby. They would let the EMF readings be further evidence they should be using Faraday cages. And they would stop claiming bugs and random pieces of dust are "orbs", give me a break. Lastly they would get the hell out of the place so their compromised psyche can stop feeling "touched" and yielding no real data.
Then again, if they did these things they probably wouldn't have much, if anything, to put on TV to sell commercials.
Wow...if you have actually watched the "Ghost Hunters" show, you would know that: TAPS generally discounts orbs as dust, bugs, or lens flare. The co-founders of TAPS are extremely skeptical of orbs. Typically their crew is often seen using a variety of branded equipment. Although some equipment does use magnetic media such as tapes, most of their equipment uses digital recording technologies. So called 'Personal Experiences' ie. touching, hair standing on end, cold spots, etc are not taken as evidence alone, they must at least be backed up with something they can record somehow. While anyone can edit tapes, etc and in no case in any so called "paranormal investigation" could anyone ever know if they are being defrauded unless they are physically present at the investigation - the TAPS team at least depicts their debunking attempts, as well as throwing out things they consider compromised.
I went on a 'ghost hunt' aboard the Queen Mary with a guy that claims to do work similar to what the TAPS team does. He genuinely shocked that only a fraction of the people that came in (including myself *SMUG!!*) brought a flashlight.
Just as a note on this, the TAPS team investigated the Queen Mary, and they determined that someone had tampered with their investigation.
Nah, This guy is just next in line for the job. Leave it to Obama-nation to come up with another "position". More of my tax money for another stupid program run by stupid people for the benefit of the Federal Employees and the Obama ra ra section of the major media. And worst of all, some of you actually thing it is a good idea. Obviously you have head buried someplace dark, smelly and damp for the last 2 years. Get a grip...
Oh please please please MOD THIS UP My kingdom for some mod points!!!!
The Air Force was part of the Army.
...to look for (and remove) certificates for North Korean Certificate Authorities. Oh this is going to go sooooo well.....
tar -xvf gulf.tar
I most certainly did not make that assertion. Of course it does. However I don't view the human mind as something that is unable to change anything it learns as a child. "Because that's how I was raised" is the weakest excuse someone could ever have for maintaining a life philosophy or personal beliefs. If you disagree with that, then I feel sorry for you as you can not possibly turn away from something that you might not truly believe, no matter what other points of view have been presented to you since childhood.
Ok, Ill bite...
It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.
I don't think this is completely true. You are correct, parents generally attempt to influence their children's religious beliefs at a young age, and religions provide means of education, indoctrination, and initiation of members from birth. I think brainwashing might not be the right word for this. However I also believe that as adults we all have the ability to learn, expand our minds, challenge the world around them, etc which usually leads to things like higher education and otherwise exploring different ideas about everything. I was raised Catholic, that is what I follow to this day, but not simply because that's what I was indoctrinated with as a child...as an adult I had questions, looked to challenge some of those ideas and challenging those ideas for me actually strengthened my faith.
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...
Just one thing about the whole "right vs wrong God" thing...the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam - are there any others I can't think of? Maybe even Zoroasterism?) all worship the same God, even if some of the more fringe, radical types of people don't want to accept it. Just because a particular radical Muslim, for example, might believe that worshipping Allah is not the same thing as worshipping the Christian God, it doesn't mean they aren't doing it in reality. I might be able to stretch this a bit further by saying that maybe even some polytheistic religions are actually worshipping the same God I point to here, but they may simply incorrectly see other powerful spiritual beings as "gods". Catholicism gets a bad rap for this, some people seem to think that we worship angels and saints...this view is not correct. However maybe some of these polytheistic religions are looking at angels, saints, etc as "other gods". While God may not be man-made, religion is and therefore must be flawed in one or more aspects of each religion man creates. However the rest of what you say makes sense and surely is a possibility, except when you consider what you write next...
I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.
Now here is the big selling point for Christianity that seems to be lost on most people (including many Christians). Christianity is the new covenant between God and humanity. The concepts that are central to the Christian faith is this: God is perfect. God has created imperfect beings. God formed a new covenant with humanity and decided to be present among us in the form of a "human son" to teach us about this new covenant, about our imperfection, and eventually our salvation. The new covenant was sealed with the death of Christ on the cross, an event people commonly refer to as "Christ's personal sacrifice / death on the cross for our sins". The whole point of this exercise was for God to show us that he loves us so much that he sent his one and only son to "save" us from the devil, Hell, etc. (BTW: I really don't like the concept of
I agree with this, also you can look up what you just heard on WQXR on their website and click a link to ArchivMusic which will allow you to buy the recording of what you just heard. I haven't used it yet, but if you are looking for a very specific recording WQXR's site is a great reference to find the recording and find a way to buy it.
Why can't different religions be right at the same time? Sure they can all be wrong, but you make the issue way too black and white. There are probably religions that are 100% wrong. I doubt any religion is 100% right, but sure, it could be possible. However a bunch of different religions could be right in one way or another without being completely perfect. BTW, when I say "religion" I also include the differences between denominations that have the same "base religion" so to speak...some can be so different they might as well be different religions.
Sure, thank you for bolstering my point.
um, arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Being a language nazi makes you doubly so.
Mod parent up +1000!!! Holy crap its about time people other than liberals started posting on popular internet forums.
So in other words, the problem is not the Wii, it's the capability of the developers? Why is it the Wii's fault that third party developers water down games because they can't develop properly for the Wii? Do third party developers not have all the tools, knowledge, etc they need to develop for the Wii? Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the "best" titles (I hope not!) Based on this paragraph, I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same.
Boris, now we can finally put an end to Moose and Squirrel!!!
but may I ask: what is the real benefit to totally handcoding a site as opposed to using web design applications? I really like the ability to create a layout in Fireworks and then have that imported into Dreamweaver where I can continue to design graphically or code by hand where I feel it is necessary. I can see what it will look like instantly in the WYSIWYG, and then test it in the million different browsers I have installed on my system. Some of us do not want to code our sites 60 hours a week, we want to spend the time on figuring out the actual look and feel of the site, writing copy, editing graphics, etc. Maybe if you have a full team of developers and a marketing department its a different story...marketing writes the copy, creates the images, has the concept for the layout of the site, and then developers just code it to marketing's specs.
But many organizations, especially small businesses that like to do things in-house don't have those luxuries. I have been in the position of being responsible for ALL ASPECTS of a corporate site, from copy to images to layout and coding. Many people in positions like mine love the ability to quickly put together the site, have an automated tool tell me the code is compliant to whatever standard I desire, and then dive into the code where I see things just aren't right, or to write the dynamic portions of the site that can't be put together in a WYSIWYG environment. Tools like Dreamweaver (especially Dreamweaver, I've used it since Dreameaver MX) and really the entire Macromedia Studio/Adobe Web Design package as a whole have been a Godsend.
Ultimately if the page looks great, runs well, is secure, built quickly, cost effective, and meets all the requirements of the organization or customer, what's the problem? Other than personal ego and bragging rights (neither of which have anything to do with creating a website), I don't see the big deal.
You, sir, should be modded up to the sky, as this is the best explanation I have ever seen concerning the "nature of Linux" as you describe it.
However might I add that Linux can still keep this identity despite things like merging distros, LSB, making connections to the non-free world, non-free components, etc. You mentoned Red Hat but not Ubuntu, but I will use Ubuntu as my example.
For example, Ubuntu is Debian, except that Ubuntu has been willing to play nice with corporations and put some real money and business sense behind it...which includes helping to drive the development and supply of non-free/restricted drivers. Ubuntu is still Linux if, for example, someone at Canonical got Linux Mint to close shop because they might "create confusion among distros". Having your own distribution does not make you any more or less of a contributor to Linux or the Open Source movement. If there were no metadistributions of Ubuntu and Ubuntu somehow caused that, it does not cease to be Linux. Some could say the same about Ubuntu vs. Debian as well...but the difference is the people involved with Ubuntu would not be able to do what it is doing if they were part of the Debian organization. Many minor distros can not make this argument. I believe minor or metadistros help Linux when they do something that can not be done by simply being a contributor to the parent distribution. Otherwise they do not.
Despite this and other things, I don't believe that Ubuntu (as an example) has gone far enough away from the "Nature of Linux" to say that it is no longer Linux. They seem to straddle the line between "Linux" and "Linux-like thing but not Linux" pretty well. It is almost completely free/open source and plays well with the open source community. What is non-free, closed or proprietary is not forced on the user - I can have a completely FOSS box and still run Ubuntu. Changes have been made to "improve" the user experience/ease of use for joe user without throwing away that which your typical Linux hacker holds dear. While I use GNOME, I am not forced to keep it. While I use Firefox, I can dump it and use Iceweasel instead, and do so with ease. I believe Linux as the beacon of software freedom and choice not only continues to exist - it has been enhanced through vendors/distros such as Ubuntu.
However I agree with your view that OSX is not BSD. It certainly is possible for a vendor to take Linux/BSD far enough away from its roots to say that it is no longer that thing. I'm not quite sure at what point that line is crossed, but I believe Red hat and Ubuntu are dancing on that line; Apple has jumped over it.
So let the bank get robbed because insurance will pay out? That is pretty weak. Shit rolls downhill. Banks are insured, insurance costs money. Insurance costs go up when perceived risk goes up, to the detriment of non-rich bank customers who lose money in the form of reduced interest rates and increased fees to cover new insurance premiums as well as increased security. Federal money also covers bank account funds, so the non-rich taxpayers all over the place can lose out there. In modern times, a bank robbery can also include theft of non-rich personal financial information which has value. Safe deposit boxes at banks also contain physical property that has great value, monetary or otherwise. Plenty of non-rich have those as well. Insurance can compensate for these things, but can never truly replace things like private information or family relics.
I wasn't trying to imply that someone could steal my house by robbing a bank, and I realize now that it sounded like that. The intent simply was to further express how banks are tied to non-rich people. Plenty of non-rich people do business with banks, even if it is just for their mortgage.
Um, if that statement was supposed to imply that catching a bank robber is only to protect the rich, then your argument is flawed. Non-rich people keep money in banks too. I certainly am not rich, yet I have the vast majority of my money in banks. The bank also owns the home I live in for another 20-something years. Plenty of rich and non-rich people live this way. So if joe bank robber rips off the bank, that one action has affected hundreds, if not thousands, of both rich and non-rich people (as well as businesses which provide wages to rich and non-rich people) that may have money there. If a car thief steals a car and and chops it, that thief affected one person that may or may not be rich. Even the government has limited resources...protecting banks by catching bank robbers helps a much greater number of people than shutting down a bunch of chop shops.
Additionally, If bank robberies became less of a priority than chop shops, you would simply see a shift in crime from boosting cars to robbing banks (as per your example) as criminals would eventually realize a greater return on their crime with a lower risk of getting caught. After all, (under the conditions of law enforcement concentrating on chop shops instead of banks) if you were going to steal something, would you steal ten cars with a high chance of getting caught stealing and selling the parts, or would you rob a bank from which you might see greater value for your actions, with a lower chance of getting caught?
Why do you sound shocked or upset that the severity of a crime increases with the value of the target? If I had a choice of stealing a few cars to make lets say $50,000 on the parts or robbing a bank of $100,000 cash that might make up the combined bank accounts of lets say 50 non-rich people in my local community bank, but knew that I would spend a year in jail for either one if I got caught, why wouldn't I try for the $100,000 If I stand to receive the same punishment? Stealing the $100,000 potentially does much greater damage to a greater number of people, and lack of a threat of a greater punishment for that action encourages that.
Even if IP addresses are removed or changed, search history is still not anonymous unless the records of search results get shuffled together. As long as all the search terms and results from one address are kept together in one record or otherwise tied to a unique identifier of any kind, your search habits and results can still be traced back to you. Anonymous search data is a myth.
If the AF can claim they did it for any of the following reasons, they are exempt from the DMCA: `(e) LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES- This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term `information security' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
Because I certainly can't get to it from Earth....
HAHAHAHA Obama votes against a large portion of his supporter's will, both expanding surveillance and providing immunity to large corporations from criminal lawsuits! HAHAHAHA There's your change! How do you like your precious Obama now???
...as they force non-online mail order companies to collect taxes from out of state buyers. There is no difference between online sellers and a brick and mortar mail order business that sends a catalog to an out of state resident. If you live in the state in which the business resides, that business must collect taxes from you. Many mail order companies specify that when filling out an order form, the buyer must include the specified tax if they are a resident of that state. If I live in NY and buy something from a mail order company in PA, I do not pay PA taxes. However most states, if not all, do require their citizens pay their state's sales tax on things they order via mail order. However this is completely unenforceable and if a state does collect those taxes, it is because the citizen voluntarily pays the taxes. How many people do you think volunteer to pay these unenforcable taxes???? In NJ there was a big deal about people who travel to native american reservations to buy cigarettes because they do not charge state taxes (a few dollars a pack for NJ cigarette taxes), and NJ is hurting for money bad so they tried to find ways to get the money from smokers that dodge these taxes. I don't think they were very successful. There is no difference between collecting taxes in any of these situations...it is unenforceable, and a state can not force a business that does not reside in their borders or operate under their jurisdiction to collect their state's taxes, no matter if the sale is conducted through a web site, a magazine, or a catalog.
MOD PARENT UP! +1 Insightful
I tried for a job with Sun. Got it too. I double majored at a small liberal arts college that my manager never heard of, and I even beat out H1Bs.