You're still wrong; the original target was not 'companies', but 'corporates'.
The fact that a Corporation can exist in an ostensible democracy is a scam; it allows behaviour by an entity with little or no restraint or punishment.
The shirt says "I will not submit" in Arabic (I guess) and in English.
The amusing thing is, pro-Iraq war groups promote this shirt, along with a similar one with "Infidel", presumably in this case the message is intended for Arabs.
Ironic really that it can apply equally well worn by anyone objecting to the oppressive violence from either side.
"THE INTERNET IS NOT JUST FOR PROFIT". Shove your capitalism up your arse. I will determine the data that is downloaded to my computer and the manne rin which it is downloaded. It's _mine_.
If you want me to pay a price to consume a product or use a service, charge me money! Thousands of sites do this, now even including Kuro5hin.
It's not acceptable to charge advertisers money for providing a service to the advertisers, then complain that someone else isn't doing their bit. WTF? If you want me to watch the ads, give me a cut of the money! If you think your content is so good, then charge me for it. just because it took you hours and you spellchecked it doesn't mean I'm obligated to you.
I'm not consuming a product, I'm reading text, which someone allows me to connect to and download. It is legal for me to do this, there is no licence or contract involved, no matter what TOS you slap on the site.
Whether or not I choose to also download some other additional articles, or favicon bmps, or other images or advertisements has nothing to do with you.
If you don't want people to download your content, don't spend time and money putting it online.
If you can't get enough advertising dollars to do it, don't do it. The world will not crumble if a few websites go missing, even if they are popular good ones.
Your example of physical theft is childish. Noone said that something was moral just because it could be done.
Also, because you read this informative comment, you are now obligated to send me a grovelling email explaining in your own words how well you understand the concepts of freedom and individual choice. No? See? Stupid isn't it?
"It is a condition of my entering this store that I be allowed to pass freely and unhindered through any and all areas, including those designated for staff, without question or interruption from any agent for this store."
Lots of things are worse than swapping out drives; swapping out motherboards for starters, all the way up to cancer, torture or oppresive fascist rule.
Besides, don't you have those funky front-facing RAID hotswap disks? Havne't got some? GET SOME! Then the suckiest thing in your life will be much better, and the biggest hassle in your day will be spilling coffee.
If the argument has legs, it 'stands up'; in court, to scrutiny, or what have you. An argument with legs is either logically valid or at least convincing to an audience.
A preposterous argument is ridiculous; clearly absurd, and the motives, intelligence or sanity of the person proposing the argument should be examined.
Now the idea that damage due to copyright infringement is only possible if it is done for financial gain does 'have legs', at least in the sense that it would convince many people. However, the idea is not preposterous.
The best I can give you is that "The idea that criminal charges due to copyright infringement is only possible if it is done for financial gain, or if the copyright work is commercially traded is misinformed".
Ignoring the effect on the core for now, bringing up x billion joules of heat into the lower atmosphere will increase temperature. All electricity 'use' is energy conversion; to heat, sound or light. Sound converts to heat; visible light probably does. I can't imagine where else non-infra-red radiation ends up in a closed box if not as heat.
In any case, there's a heat increase. People will tell you that Newton's (someone else's?) law of cooling means that the heat cools faster, which is of course true, so we won't _overheat_, but it's still a heat increase; and the heat is dissipated as infra-red light, so what we're doing is....
now that the CO2 is high and rising, and we're worried about heat being trapped under the 'blanket', it's time to pump in more heat from below!!
The only long-term workable solution is to require less joules per day per happy person, but that's unamerican.
I think the slashdot blurb is misleading; as far as I can tell, this only applies where violence is used.
"To have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose of..."
So... general street protest and civil disobedience appear to be unaffected.
Of course, in the real world, laws are of course misused, and I expect that some guy will fall over and stumble into a cop at a peace rally somewhere, be arrested for assault and thus have his parent's house, and their neighbors' houses confiscated, but still; the order does indicate that violence is required, and slashdot (or the submitter) skipped that bit.
As an aside though, I like Section 8. Paraphrased:
This order does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Which really means:
This executive order can and will only transfer power and privilege TO the beaurocracy.
Actually I don't get it.
"This order... and does not create any right... enforceable at law... by any party against... any other person.
So does that mean that the executive order does not give the right, enforceable at law, by the police/DHS against "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence....... "
The terrorists want to cause terror and make us react in exactly the way we (the majority) have been - giving up our civil rights, running around panicking, and anytime there's even a threat of an attack, our level goes up to "Orange" or some such nonsense. Bollocks. They don't care what happens in London, except maybe where it's the targeting of muslims or arabs.
The terrorists want specific things like these, and Osama has even said so; and you'll find much the same response from any terrorist group, in or out of the Middle East.
1) The removal of 'western' troops from 'muslim' lands (includes Russians in Chechnya)
2) The end of military and economic aid to the current rulers of these lands (Saddam (old news), The Saudi family, the Egyptian regime etc)
2.5) As a minimum, the end to Israeli control of Palestine, and probably the right of return. Of course some want to wipe out Israel, but that's not a direct cause of Bali, London or Madrid bombings.
3) The removal of IMF and World Bank involvement in the countries the terrorists care about.
4) Nationalised control of important industries and areas such as oil & mining, health & education.
Basically they're saying that they don't want the countries they claim to represent being part of someone else's informal empire.
When control is exerted by a nation to ensure a flow of money or materials from another nation, against the wishes of the population, that's empire. Just because we don't call it "The USian Empire" doesn't mean that it's not one.
Of course, terrorism won't work because most of the population and elites of the western (Christian?) world just don't understand any of this, and most would be reluctant to meet the demands anyway on principle.
What we're seeing now is a desperate attempt by desperate people to be allowed to control their own destinies and their own countries, after all other avenues (street protests, attacks on Military targets and embassies, action in the UN) have failed. Sadly, the terrorist actions encourage fear, hatred and aggression in the ONLY people who could help them; the general populations of the west.
Overall, the terrorists don't realise the level of ignorance in the western population, and as the countries are supposedly democracies, assume that the civilians are all happy to rip them off and bomb them and support the tyrants who oppress them; on the other side, most westerners assume that this is some kind of aggressive expansionism of the middle eastern freaks to bring Sharia law to the planet, because they have no concept of history outside their own nationalist mythologies.
The very first step to getting things fixed would be to properly publicly re-release the public and secret paperwork covering foreign policy in the region, explaining properly things like the revolution in Iran, the Suez canal affair, the creation and expansion of Israel, the Saudi's selfish hoarding of oil wealth instead of providing for the people, the reasons why Saddam was supported for so long as a proxy general against the Iranians, the outrageous military spending of small states like Qatar (over 50% of GDP) on western hardware.
That's not going to happen, because the governments can't really self-accuse like this, and I still think that most people wouldn't believe it, or wouldn't understand, or wouldn't care. Westerners who genuinely care about this stuff have already figured it out for themselves.
As for the horrible Shariah laws these people want to inflict on each other, well, that's really none of our fucking business. Seriously, imagine if China started sanctions and bombing of the USA because they thought that the PATRIOT act was unfair to the people.
So they don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because they aren't free and they want to be, and rightly or wrongly see us as the direct or indirect cause.
Well you see the idea is that you need to get the more energy from somewhere. From ethanol perhaps? er, no, because then you'd use it all up.
So if you're using ethanol to try and reduce oil consumption, but you need more energy from oil to make the ethanol than you get from it, then you're INCREASING oil consumption! Mostly from OPEC.
And you can make your own alcohol fuels, but the USA uses (not needs, just uses):
20 million barrels per day, from global production of ~85 million.
seems like a lot, but that's a barrel, wtf is a barrel?
A barrel is 160 litres.
So now you want to use
3200000000 metric litres every day.
Except ethanol gives us 20MJ/l, and oil gives 33, so we need to factor up by 2/3, so now you want
5,280,000,000 litres every single day.
That's some impressive engineering. When will you start?
they mean that it requires more energy FROM US. Most people assume that plants grow using energy from the sun; eg burning wood.
What these people mean is that we can use, say, 100 joules of oil energy to power a car, OR we can use it to create, say 87 (or 32? who knows?) joules of ethanol energy to run a car.
conservation mining or whatever you want to call it. A penny saved is a penny earned.
Basically it is cheapest, easiest and cleanest to switch off lights that aren't required for useful production. Of course that's subjective, and it might be the bathroom when noone's in there or the porch light while your not home or the advertisement in Times square, but any reduction in energy use is better than none.
Is it true that humvees get only one mpg?
Just use less; all it takes is for the consumer to give a fuck; to care, to notice, to take "responsibility for their actions".
They don't even need to be educated, or to understand the thermodynamics, they only need to know that people and animals die to provide the energy, due to the ways and places it's exctracted.
Slashdot Mirror
You're still wrong; the original target was not 'companies', but 'corporates'.
The fact that a Corporation can exist in an ostensible democracy is a scam; it allows behaviour by an entity with little or no restraint or punishment.
I suspect that pure-ftpd does what you're asking. Please take a look.
The shirt says "I will not submit" in Arabic (I guess) and in English.
The amusing thing is, pro-Iraq war groups promote this shirt, along with a similar one with "Infidel", presumably in this case the message is intended for Arabs.
Ironic really that it can apply equally well worn by anyone objecting to the oppressive violence from either side.
I'd love to see Windows Technical Edition, made for people who don't need bubbles or wizards or Image viewers or all the other crappy parts.
I'd pay for that.
The customer is the one who pays you.
This means that the customer is the advertiser. Access to the readers, or viewers, is the product being sold.
Weirdo. Repeat after me:
"THE INTERNET IS NOT JUST FOR PROFIT". Shove your capitalism up your arse. I will determine the data that is downloaded to my computer and the manne rin which it is downloaded. It's _mine_.
If you want me to pay a price to consume a product or use a service, charge me money! Thousands of sites do this, now even including Kuro5hin.
It's not acceptable to charge advertisers money for providing a service to the advertisers, then complain that someone else isn't doing their bit. WTF? If you want me to watch the ads, give me a cut of the money! If you think your content is so good, then charge me for it. just because it took you hours and you spellchecked it doesn't mean I'm obligated to you.
I'm not consuming a product, I'm reading text, which someone allows me to connect to and download. It is legal for me to do this, there is no licence or contract involved, no matter what TOS you slap on the site.
Whether or not I choose to also download some other additional articles, or favicon bmps, or other images or advertisements has nothing to do with you.
If you don't want people to download your content, don't spend time and money putting it online.
If you can't get enough advertising dollars to do it, don't do it. The world will not crumble if a few websites go missing, even if they are popular good ones.
Your example of physical theft is childish. Noone said that something was moral just because it could be done.
Also, because you read this informative comment, you are now obligated to send me a grovelling email explaining in your own words how well you understand the concepts of freedom and individual choice. No? See? Stupid isn't it?
I shall enter carrying my own sign:
"It is a condition of my entering this store that I be allowed to pass freely and unhindered through any and all areas, including those designated for staff, without question or interruption from any agent for this store."
See? It's just a sign...
security theatre, just like rescue/relief theatre (New Orleans) or democracy theatre, is always cheaper than the real thing.
I agree; life is just a chemical convection current.
Lots of things are worse than swapping out drives; swapping out motherboards for starters, all the way up to cancer, torture or oppresive fascist rule.
Besides, don't you have those funky front-facing RAID hotswap disks? Havne't got some? GET SOME! Then the suckiest thing in your life will be much better, and the biggest hassle in your day will be spilling coffee.
If the argument has legs, it 'stands up'; in court, to scrutiny, or what have you. An argument with legs is either logically valid or at least convincing to an audience.
A preposterous argument is ridiculous; clearly absurd, and the motives, intelligence or sanity of the person proposing the argument should be examined.
Now the idea that damage due to copyright infringement is only possible if it is done for financial gain does 'have legs', at least in the sense that it would convince many people. However, the idea is not preposterous.
The best I can give you is that "The idea that criminal charges due to copyright infringement is only possible if it is done for financial gain, or if the copyright work is commercially traded is misinformed".
I hope this clarifies the matter.
Ignoring the effect on the core for now, bringing up x billion joules of heat into the lower atmosphere will increase temperature. All electricity 'use' is energy conversion; to heat, sound or light. Sound converts to heat; visible light probably does. I can't imagine where else non-infra-red radiation ends up in a closed box if not as heat.
In any case, there's a heat increase. People will tell you that Newton's (someone else's?) law of cooling means that the heat cools faster, which is of course true, so we won't _overheat_, but it's still a heat increase; and the heat is dissipated as infra-red light, so what we're doing is....
now that the CO2 is high and rising, and we're worried about heat being trapped under the 'blanket', it's time to pump in more heat from below!!
The only long-term workable solution is to require less joules per day per happy person, but that's unamerican.
Identical twins?
That scares me; I hope they get the software ready in time, the quote, taken alone, bleeds a certain naivety.
We're making 3 million of these, and we'll have the software ready before October.
I assume that leaves around 2.5 months to plan, design, code, repeat(test-fix), deploy.
I hope it's not important code.
I think the slashdot blurb is misleading; as far as I can tell, this only applies where violence is used.
... and does not create any right ... enforceable at law ... by any party against ... any other person.
....... "
"To have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose of..."
So... general street protest and civil disobedience appear to be unaffected.
Of course, in the real world, laws are of course misused, and I expect that some guy will fall over and stumble into a cop at a peace rally somewhere, be arrested for assault and thus have his parent's house, and their neighbors' houses confiscated, but still; the order does indicate that violence is required, and slashdot (or the submitter) skipped that bit.
As an aside though, I like Section 8. Paraphrased:
This order does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Which really means:
This executive order can and will only transfer power and privilege TO the beaurocracy.
Actually I don't get it.
"This order
So does that mean that the executive order does not give the right, enforceable at law, by the police/DHS against
"any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
I'm so glad IANAL!!
The terrorists want specific things like these, and Osama has even said so; and you'll find much the same response from any terrorist group, in or out of the Middle East.
1) The removal of 'western' troops from 'muslim' lands (includes Russians in Chechnya)
2) The end of military and economic aid to the current rulers of these lands (Saddam (old news), The Saudi family, the Egyptian regime etc)
2.5) As a minimum, the end to Israeli control of Palestine, and probably the right of return. Of course some want to wipe out Israel, but that's not a direct cause of Bali, London or Madrid bombings.
3) The removal of IMF and World Bank involvement in the countries the terrorists care about.
4) Nationalised control of important industries and areas such as oil & mining, health & education.
Basically they're saying that they don't want the countries they claim to represent being part of someone else's informal empire.
When control is exerted by a nation to ensure a flow of money or materials from another nation, against the wishes of the population, that's empire. Just because we don't call it "The USian Empire" doesn't mean that it's not one.
Of course, terrorism won't work because most of the population and elites of the western (Christian?) world just don't understand any of this, and most would be reluctant to meet the demands anyway on principle.
What we're seeing now is a desperate attempt by desperate people to be allowed to control their own destinies and their own countries, after all other avenues (street protests, attacks on Military targets and embassies, action in the UN) have failed. Sadly, the terrorist actions encourage fear, hatred and aggression in the ONLY people who could help them; the general populations of the west.
Overall, the terrorists don't realise the level of ignorance in the western population, and as the countries are supposedly democracies, assume that the civilians are all happy to rip them off and bomb them and support the tyrants who oppress them; on the other side, most westerners assume that this is some kind of aggressive expansionism of the middle eastern freaks to bring Sharia law to the planet, because they have no concept of history outside their own nationalist mythologies.
The very first step to getting things fixed would be to properly publicly re-release the public and secret paperwork covering foreign policy in the region, explaining properly things like the revolution in Iran, the Suez canal affair, the creation and expansion of Israel, the Saudi's selfish hoarding of oil wealth instead of providing for the people, the reasons why Saddam was supported for so long as a proxy general against the Iranians, the outrageous military spending of small states like Qatar (over 50% of GDP) on western hardware.
That's not going to happen, because the governments can't really self-accuse like this, and I still think that most people wouldn't believe it, or wouldn't understand, or wouldn't care. Westerners who genuinely care about this stuff have already figured it out for themselves.
As for the horrible Shariah laws these people want to inflict on each other, well, that's really none of our fucking business. Seriously, imagine if China started sanctions and bombing of the USA because they thought that the PATRIOT act was unfair to the people.
So they don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because they aren't free and they want to be, and rightly or wrongly see us as the direct or indirect cause.
And when it was first brought in, we would have seen:
The Government will only be able to use the data for the congestion charge, and not for any other reason, the Home Office stressed.
It's never the fault of the poor person who gets to do all the actual work.
What happened to free will and personal responsibility? Only following orders eh? Perhaps you might consider moving to a country with greater freedom.
Savings provides funds that others can borrow, an empty house provides nothing whatsoever.
oil prices are up because the demand matches supply, and one is rising and the other is falling.
"Who cares if it requires more energy or not?"
Well you see the idea is that you need to get the more energy from somewhere. From ethanol perhaps? er, no, because then you'd use it all up.
So if you're using ethanol to try and reduce oil consumption, but you need more energy from oil to make the ethanol than you get from it, then you're INCREASING oil consumption! Mostly from OPEC.
And you can make your own alcohol fuels, but the USA uses (not needs, just uses):
20 million barrels per day, from global production of ~85 million.
seems like a lot, but that's a barrel, wtf is a barrel?
A barrel is 160 litres.
So now you want to use
3200000000 metric litres every day.
Except ethanol gives us 20MJ/l, and oil gives 33, so we need to factor up by 2/3, so now you want
5,280,000,000 litres every single day.
That's some impressive engineering. When will you start?
they mean that it requires more energy FROM US. Most people assume that plants grow using energy from the sun; eg burning wood.
What these people mean is that we can use, say, 100 joules of oil energy to power a car, OR we can use it to create, say 87 (or 32? who knows?) joules of ethanol energy to run a car.
That's the point.
So, did he start a garbage hauling business, and good economists indicate that he would?
No, I thought not. They always forget to factor in reality.
The alternative is to use less.
conservation mining or whatever you want to call it. A penny saved is a penny earned.
Basically it is cheapest, easiest and cleanest to switch off lights that aren't required for useful production. Of course that's subjective, and it might be the bathroom when noone's in there or the porch light while your not home or the advertisement in Times square, but any reduction in energy use is better than none.
Is it true that humvees get only one mpg?
Just use less; all it takes is for the consumer to give a fuck; to care, to notice, to take "responsibility for their actions".
They don't even need to be educated, or to understand the thermodynamics, they only need to know that people and animals die to provide the energy, due to the ways and places it's exctracted.
AM2 Sempron with firewire, ASUS motherboard and 6150 chipset, in Australian dollars:
CPU $70
Motherboard $129
RAM $40
Keyboard + mouse $10
screen free 2nd hand or use a TV.
Total: $250.
Windows XP: $250
By your logic, you can afford to pay double on anything you buy, and I don't agree that this is true.