Do you wake up in the morning and blame the Evil Jews when you can't find your slippers? How about when you bang your toe? The Evil Zionist Conspiracy must have been lying in wait for just the right moment to smack you on your toe.
If you really think people in the west are focused on anything other than simply existing happily, I feel sorry for your worldview. There is no trans-national conspiracy in the West to keep the Arab down - in fact, I think you'd find that the West would gladly accept mainstream (i.e. from those not born or assimilated into a western culture) Arab culture if the largest Arab countries would stop stealing from and oppressing their people and then blaming their plight on the Evil Jews.
I can only assume that you live in the US, but perhaps you live in Ireland/the UK - in either case, this point is still valid. For the vast majority of people living in those countries, they don't care what you look like or where you are from as long as you don't act like an idiot. Although, if you really think that there's some sort of quasi-organized racist conspiracy, there is unfortunately little to nothing that anybody can do for you.
(FYI - I did a small amount of research, and the only place I could find a source for the Kissinger quote above came from either blatantly racist sites or whackjob International Banking Conspiracy idiots).
You know, I probably dislike Bush as much as you do, but I have to correct you here. From what has been released in the press (which, of course, could be wrong, but we have no reason to doubt it), domestic-to-domestic calls have not been listened to without a warrant. All that has been done (and I'm not saying that it isn't sketchy) has been an identity-less correlation of mass amounts of calling patterns, with no contents of calls being recorded or listened to.
I suspect we are both on the same side, but you lose credibility when you are factually incorrect, and thus getting it right strengthens your argument.
I suggest that anybody interested in this topic read 'The Transparent Society' by David Brin - he covers this issue, plus quite a bit more while making some excellent points.
These cameras will be publicly viewable by anyone on the internet, not just The Authorities.
I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.
The key point that you are missing is this - the internet does not transmit over radio waves. Or, more correctly, the internet does not use the publicly broadcasted spectrum. The FCC's original charter was to ensure that chaos on airwaves did not happen. Somehow, they wormed their way into completely isolated means of communication like fiber optics or coax cable.
I fail to see how the FCC should have any say over anything that I as a private individual or company want to transmit over my privately owned lines, or how much I want to charge people for their use. Of course, this argument does allow for the big telcos to implement the silly double-dipping scheme where they charge both ends of the communication, but the free market exists to prevent that. If SBC/AT&T, Verizon, etc. want to imeplement this, what is stopping Google from forming their own publicly-available routed IP network?
www.edonkey.com would appear to be the homepage for the eDonkey P2P protocol.
You are technically correct in that eDonkey/eMule has the ability to use magnet links to begin the download of a file, but they were never directly involved in content aggregation/distribution themselves.
Comparing just the raw price of stocks is completely pointless. If things worked like you seem to think they do, then Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) would pretty much own the entire American economy, since their stock is trading at around $83,000 a share, and pitiful google is only $300.
I'm still unsure as to how these two are examples of an ongoing trend.
In any case, they're being prosecuted for what is, and always has been (i.e. pre-Bush) a fairly serious crime. Willfully withholding information about a crime from the police makes you an accomplice to the crime. If I were to kill someone, and then confess to you and give you details of the crime, do you not expect to be brought up on charges if 1) the police can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you know who comitted the crime and how, and 2) you are willfully refusing to cooperate with the authorities?
The argument here is that journalists must protect their sources, and I agree - in cases where they are not protecting a felon from prosecution. In essence, they are asking that they be exempted from the normal requirements placed on the general population in order to protect their business, which I find somewhat upsetting.
Just because someone has the job title of 'journalist' shouldn't mean that they have more rights than an average citizen. Every person should share the exact same right to free speech - frankly, I'm bothered if we extend special provisions to certain people.
I am unsure as to what you are referring to - there have been several improtant SCOTUS decisions in the past few days. Which one exactly has to do with jailing journalists?
And what is the name of the journalist that you say is about to be locked up?
OMG. The US is probably the western country that puts most journalists in jail and repeatedly oppress free speech and free press and you try to say it's better than the UK?
This is pure flamebait. You cannot make a statement like this without backing it up with examples. I dare you to name one single American journalist who has been imprisoned merely for what he/she has said or written.
I bet that NASA would be exponentially less expensive and more effective if they were willing to have the astronauts assume the same risk as your average NASCAR driver. It's extremely safe for what they're doing (whipping around at 200 mph, which is no small feat) and everybody involved knows the risks and still willingly participates.
At the risk of being crude, I'm not terribly suprised by the Chinese government not wanting their citizens to read articles about people being run over by tank^H^H^H^H cars.
"The economy isn't everything."
Actually, it is. The economy gets you the abundant cheap food you eat for every meal. The economy provides the electricity you use to power your computer. It makes your clothes.
To boil it down, you would be dead in a week (probably less) if there was no economy. Do you know how to grow your own food, make your own clothes, heat yourself, protect yourself, and basically do all the little things that keep you alive that you take for granted.
Now, I know it's nice to think that world opinion and big warm fuzzy hugs from our neighbors are the most important thing, but if you ask me, my next meal and making sure the lights stay on trump that any day.
I'm going to preface this with the statement that I don't neccessarily disagree with the finding in the linked story.
But doesn't it strike people strange that Slashdot has made a post that is arguably an opinion, rather than a fact? Agree or disagree, the issue in question really is a matter of difference of opinion, rather than hard provable fact. For every NYT article stating 'Bush lied' I'm sure you could find a Wall Street Journal article asserting the opposite.
Is the intent of the Slashdot article to be 'journalistic' in intent, or is it truly meant to be an opinion piece? Most other periodicals/publications/journalistic endeavours either split up news into straight reporting and an editorial section, or just have one or the other and make it clear which way they lean - does Slashdot do this as well?
C) Do you honestly think we're not being as careful as we could be? If we weren't, most of Iraq would be a smoking hole - instead, the major cities and institutions were repairably damaged instead of utterly destroyed.
D) How do you propose we do this? Ask nicely?
E) If we lift sanctions, that just gives Saddam more money and more power to oppress and slaughter his own people.
F) Peacable solution to the USSR? It took 40 YEARS of cold war and America plowing a huge percentage of our GDP into an arms and technology race to cause the USSR to implode economically. And you think SERBIA was a peaceful changeover? What about all that genocide and shooting and whatnot happening for years there?
Autozone is one of the few companies doing well right now... They do not need our assistance...
I don't know how you can make a statement like this - we've just had two quarters in a row with some of the best quarterly earnings, revenue, and GDP growth in 25 years.
Am I the only person freaked out by the concept of a 'shunt' into a major artery? Is this something permanently installed? I'm getting visions of the horrible Harkkonnen heart-plugs from the David Lynch version of Dune....
In any case, giving a tax break to X to put sound-proofing materials is not "punishing" Y for purchasing a sound-proofed home. It just means that X now has enough money to sound-proof his/her home, while Y has lost nothing.
Actually, he has lost one of the most fundamental and important of his possessions - his hard-earned money.
Your original argument is invalid - the fact that there aren't enough soundproofed homes should only have the effect of reducing their relative price to those with the premium of soundproofing. Thus, when you buy an 'old' house, you spend your money to upgrade it, if noise is a problem for you.
I find it quite difficult to find a mint conidtion 1960's jag E-type - my life would be much better off if I had one. Should taxpayers foot the bill for me to afford one, since they're so expensive? Essentially, this is the same question.
How about people who buy houses on the sides of volcanoes? Should the government tax average people to repair these houses when they get run over with lava? How about people who knowingly build on a fault line?
but my chest hurts from my inability to stop laughing at the sheer incompitence of corporate America/Finland when it comes to making a 'cool' product.
I think penny arcade got it perfectly right here.
Slashdot Mirror
What's it like being an anti-semite?
Do you wake up in the morning and blame the Evil Jews when you can't find your slippers? How about when you bang your toe? The Evil Zionist Conspiracy must have been lying in wait for just the right moment to smack you on your toe.
If you really think people in the west are focused on anything other than simply existing happily, I feel sorry for your worldview. There is no trans-national conspiracy in the West to keep the Arab down - in fact, I think you'd find that the West would gladly accept mainstream (i.e. from those not born or assimilated into a western culture) Arab culture if the largest Arab countries would stop stealing from and oppressing their people and then blaming their plight on the Evil Jews.
I can only assume that you live in the US, but perhaps you live in Ireland/the UK - in either case, this point is still valid. For the vast majority of people living in those countries, they don't care what you look like or where you are from as long as you don't act like an idiot. Although, if you really think that there's some sort of quasi-organized racist conspiracy, there is unfortunately little to nothing that anybody can do for you.
(FYI - I did a small amount of research, and the only place I could find a source for the Kissinger quote above came from either blatantly racist sites or whackjob International Banking Conspiracy idiots).
When will we finally move past this stupidity?
You know, I probably dislike Bush as much as you do, but I have to correct you here. From what has been released in the press (which, of course, could be wrong, but we have no reason to doubt it), domestic-to-domestic calls have not been listened to without a warrant. All that has been done (and I'm not saying that it isn't sketchy) has been an identity-less correlation of mass amounts of calling patterns, with no contents of calls being recorded or listened to.
I suspect we are both on the same side, but you lose credibility when you are factually incorrect, and thus getting it right strengthens your argument.
I suggest that anybody interested in this topic read 'The Transparent Society' by David Brin - he covers this issue, plus quite a bit more while making some excellent points.
These cameras will be publicly viewable by anyone on the internet, not just The Authorities.
I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.
The key point that you are missing is this - the internet does not transmit over radio waves. Or, more correctly, the internet does not use the publicly broadcasted spectrum. The FCC's original charter was to ensure that chaos on airwaves did not happen. Somehow, they wormed their way into completely isolated means of communication like fiber optics or coax cable.
I fail to see how the FCC should have any say over anything that I as a private individual or company want to transmit over my privately owned lines, or how much I want to charge people for their use. Of course, this argument does allow for the big telcos to implement the silly double-dipping scheme where they charge both ends of the communication, but the free market exists to prevent that. If SBC/AT&T, Verizon, etc. want to imeplement this, what is stopping Google from forming their own publicly-available routed IP network?
www.edonkey.com would appear to be the homepage for the eDonkey P2P protocol.
You are technically correct in that eDonkey/eMule has the ability to use magnet links to begin the download of a file, but they were never directly involved in content aggregation/distribution themselves.
you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
www.emule.org
Wow. Do you have any idea how stock prices work?
Comparing just the raw price of stocks is completely pointless. If things worked like you seem to think they do, then Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) would pretty much own the entire American economy, since their stock is trading at around $83,000 a share, and pitiful google is only $300.
I'm still unsure as to how these two are examples of an ongoing trend.
In any case, they're being prosecuted for what is, and always has been (i.e. pre-Bush) a fairly serious crime. Willfully withholding information about a crime from the police makes you an accomplice to the crime. If I were to kill someone, and then confess to you and give you details of the crime, do you not expect to be brought up on charges if 1) the police can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you know who comitted the crime and how, and 2) you are willfully refusing to cooperate with the authorities?
The argument here is that journalists must protect their sources, and I agree - in cases where they are not protecting a felon from prosecution. In essence, they are asking that they be exempted from the normal requirements placed on the general population in order to protect their business, which I find somewhat upsetting.
Just because someone has the job title of 'journalist' shouldn't mean that they have more rights than an average citizen. Every person should share the exact same right to free speech - frankly, I'm bothered if we extend special provisions to certain people.
I am unsure as to what you are referring to - there have been several improtant SCOTUS decisions in the past few days. Which one exactly has to do with jailing journalists?
And what is the name of the journalist that you say is about to be locked up?
OMG. The US is probably the western country that puts most journalists in jail and repeatedly oppress free speech and free press and you try to say it's better than the UK?
This is pure flamebait. You cannot make a statement like this without backing it up with examples. I dare you to name one single American journalist who has been imprisoned merely for what he/she has said or written.
I bet that NASA would be exponentially less expensive and more effective if they were willing to have the astronauts assume the same risk as your average NASCAR driver. It's extremely safe for what they're doing (whipping around at 200 mph, which is no small feat) and everybody involved knows the risks and still willingly participates.
At the risk of being crude, I'm not terribly suprised by the Chinese government not wanting their citizens to read articles about people being run over by tank^H^H^H^H cars.
They lost my sale when they dropped online play.
Honestly, once you've played a sim-quality racing game online with other people, you never want to play singleplayer again.
"The economy isn't everything." Actually, it is. The economy gets you the abundant cheap food you eat for every meal. The economy provides the electricity you use to power your computer. It makes your clothes. To boil it down, you would be dead in a week (probably less) if there was no economy. Do you know how to grow your own food, make your own clothes, heat yourself, protect yourself, and basically do all the little things that keep you alive that you take for granted. Now, I know it's nice to think that world opinion and big warm fuzzy hugs from our neighbors are the most important thing, but if you ask me, my next meal and making sure the lights stay on trump that any day.
I'm going to preface this with the statement that I don't neccessarily disagree with the finding in the linked story.
But doesn't it strike people strange that Slashdot has made a post that is arguably an opinion, rather than a fact? Agree or disagree, the issue in question really is a matter of difference of opinion, rather than hard provable fact. For every NYT article stating 'Bush lied' I'm sure you could find a Wall Street Journal article asserting the opposite.
Is the intent of the Slashdot article to be 'journalistic' in intent, or is it truly meant to be an opinion piece? Most other periodicals/publications/journalistic endeavours either split up news into straight reporting and an editorial section, or just have one or the other and make it clear which way they lean - does Slashdot do this as well?
The IRL already has you beat on the whole flying car thing. Give them a ring, I'm sure they'd love a driver.
I don't know where to begin.
C) Do you honestly think we're not being as careful as we could be? If we weren't, most of Iraq would be a smoking hole - instead, the major cities and institutions were repairably damaged instead of utterly destroyed.
D) How do you propose we do this? Ask nicely?
E) If we lift sanctions, that just gives Saddam more money and more power to oppress and slaughter his own people.
F) Peacable solution to the USSR? It took 40 YEARS of cold war and America plowing a huge percentage of our GDP into an arms and technology race to cause the USSR to implode economically. And you think SERBIA was a peaceful changeover? What about all that genocide and shooting and whatnot happening for years there?
Is there any way to get into the beta? It seems that everybody except me has access to this game, and it's kind of nagging on me.
Is it a small closed beta, or a large scale beta like Asheron's Call 2 had going?
Autozone is one of the few companies doing well right now... They do not need our assistance...
I don't know how you can make a statement like this - we've just had two quarters in a row with some of the best quarterly earnings, revenue, and GDP growth in 25 years.
is that freaking e-trade doesn't have SCOX on its list of shortable securities.
"Be rest assured I was on the internet within minutes registering my displeasure."
Am I the only person freaked out by the concept of a 'shunt' into a major artery? Is this something permanently installed? I'm getting visions of the horrible Harkkonnen heart-plugs from the David Lynch version of Dune....
In any case, giving a tax break to X to put sound-proofing materials is not "punishing" Y for purchasing a sound-proofed home. It just means that X now has enough money to sound-proof his/her home, while Y has lost nothing.
Actually, he has lost one of the most fundamental and important of his possessions - his hard-earned money.
Your original argument is invalid - the fact that there aren't enough soundproofed homes should only have the effect of reducing their relative price to those with the premium of soundproofing. Thus, when you buy an 'old' house, you spend your money to upgrade it, if noise is a problem for you.
I find it quite difficult to find a mint conidtion 1960's jag E-type - my life would be much better off if I had one. Should taxpayers foot the bill for me to afford one, since they're so expensive? Essentially, this is the same question.
How about people who buy houses on the sides of volcanoes? Should the government tax average people to repair these houses when they get run over with lava? How about people who knowingly build on a fault line?
but my chest hurts from my inability to stop laughing at the sheer incompitence of corporate America/Finland when it comes to making a 'cool' product. I think penny arcade got it perfectly right here.