but... it's easily hacked. Why? ...smart enough to handle a nearly unbreakable encryption scheme...
Well, not that I don't agree with your point, but I just want to point out;
Since the real world isn't binary with two extremes only, 'not nearly unbreakable does' not imply 'easily hackable'.
Then, at least, informed people with money can set priorities as opposed to politicians who just want to get elected.
If you have to resort to corporations, who almost by definition are out to make money short-term, instead of politicians, who are there to build a better society long-term (that's why you voted for'em right? right?) there is something seriously, seriously wrong with your society.
I'm foreign.. hence, I learn phrases from their actual usage and not their archaic meanings.
Now, 'begging the question' as good as always means the article is practically begging the question to be asked; ie the question is written in bold-faced gigantic invisible letters inbetween the lines and you'd be a bloody retard if you didn't spot it.
'Begging the question' might have been used for a fairly limited context in old times. But I don't care much about that, since old times aren't now. More importantly the phrase actually does make sense in the modern usage. The wikipedia article states that it's used as a synomym for 'raises the question', which I really don't agree with. There is a slight difference in who the one raising the question is. With 'raises the question' the subtext is "I'm so smart that I'm asking this really insightfull question', while with 'begs the question' the subtext is 'this is so stupid, anybody reading this will point this out!'.
In my opinion, holding on to precision and subtetlies in language is a very worthwhile cause. Crusading against stuff that actually makes sense just because your grandfather used the phrase slightly differently is just inane. Language is just communication. If a phrase actually is easy enough for a foreigner to actually understand the first time he's reading it, there is nothing bloody wrong with phrase. If anything, there might be something wrong the archaic definition!
Sadly, I don't think any of them are for sale.. either way, seems well-tailored enough for me. I mean, if you're 37, there's a good chance you've started your mid-life crisis, and you seriously can't go wrong with beatifull women then:)
Swimsuit photos, maybe pictures of animals (similar color tones), etc.
If they made this for video, It'd be interesting to see how many commercials, award-ceremonies and various news-shows that would be labeled as soft-porn.
Killing people is glorified but OH CHRIST DON'T LET ANYONE BE SEEN MAKING LOVE!
Well, in all fairness, I'm actually for banning American porn.
The bang! bang! 'enjoy what I'm giving ya!'-mentality that seem so amazingly permeant throughout it is fucking degrading and has bloody nothing to do with real life. It teaches people to view women as objects and not as actual persons, which really, really is a dangerous line of thought. Impersonalisation of sex is a bad, bad thing.
My own experiences with young Americans and their views on sex has basically lead me to believe that majority of you are semi-psychopathic, ie unable to empathise and recognize that other people are actual people with feelings. This is scary.
Most credit card companies quit processing direct transactions to PokerStars, Ultimate Bet, and Full Tilt in the last 12-18 months. I did find some local banks' debit cards will work on all 3 of those, but no majors like Visa and MasterCard.
FYI VISA's working fine over here in Europe. Haven't heard of anybody having trouble ever, and I have quite a few poker-playing friends.
The norwegian and swedish cases are certainly not FUD (I can't speak for the french one as I have no idea).
They are not focused on the actual DRM or Apples past actions, but on the actual terms they are forcing you to agree with it.. and as such, the terms and the facts are right here for anybody to read.
They aren't taking any moral highground either, the complaints themselves are merely stating that these terms are believed to be contraire to respectivly Norwegian and Swedish law.
Ask them why hundreds of thousands of them are fleeing Mexico to come to America. To pick lettuce for $15 a day?
I'd say that's the difference between a working government/society and a broken one. I've long held that competence, intelligence and honesty is way more important than political agenda for politicians, and I suspect that the same holds for nations. It doesn't matter *that* much how you go about creating a society as long as you're not bloody incompetent.
Socialism is the difference between a first-world nation, and a third world bananna-republic shithole
Yes, I agree. The US has many socialists traits that have been pivotal to your success; first and foremost excellent government funding of university research.
However, while these are certainly relevant when you're comparing West to Third World, my comment was on the other hand in the context of comparing US and European definitions of freedom. While some "socialist" traits are shared, we do have a shitload more of them:)
You're forgetting one very large thing: only governments can legally use violence.
Oh, what magical rule said so? I mean, that *you* decided to give the government several rights other corporations doesn't have is *your* decision. If the majority wants it, the governments monopoly on legal violence will end. In the end, the government is just as much bound as it owns laws as other corporations are (provided you're still living in a liberal democrazy of course).
It comes at another price, too: asesrting a right to "live a nice life" implies a right to force other people to pay for it.
A right to force people to pay for it? You make that sound like it's a bad thing, and that there is some implied right 'not to pay for others'. Morality is a fickle thing; there is no implied right for either case.
The cornerstone of the democrazy is the tyrany of the majority. We choose what society we want to build, and then we live in it. There is nothing more to it.
If the majority of the citizens want everybody to do something, then that is the way it will be. If you have moral qualms about this, feel free to lobby for some other form of government (China is having quite alot of success with tyrany of the minority nowadays:))
To stay a bit on topic: I recently spent quite a bit of time researching the Swedes, and I'm very surprised at the amounts of freedoms they had in a country that has typically been considered socialist.
AFAIK Europe, and especially Scandinivia, has always had very different definitions of freedom than the US.
As I see it, the American definition is pretty much 'The Freedom To Be F*cked Over'. It has led to unparallelled economic efficiency, a reasonably succesfull forced integration of minorities (no cuddling and not too much bullshit; get a job and stop complaining!), however also it has lead to corrupt(er) politicians, massive corporate power and extremely few consumer rights. Not too bad of a deal, it turned you into a superpower, but I'm really, really not sure if it gave you happiness.
You believe in the freedom of speech, but for some obscene reason it only applies to government censorship. Which, to me, seems totally ludicrous and as absurd as it gets; after all The Government is just a reasonably large corporation with you as the owner. In a liberal democrazy it's about the only thing you don't need protection from; because it's about the only thing you have control over (mark, I come from a small country. I've met ministers and high goverment officials on random places like the street, shopping at the local supermarket etc on numerous occasions (and I'm not even from the capital).. and so have pretty much everyone)
On the other hand, 'we' (I do atleast) believe in the freedom to live a nice life. Healthcare, pensions, social security and extensive consumer rights comes at a price though; economic efficiency. However, I believe we're more than rich enough to pay it. My family have no problems only having one car (walking to the grocery store isn't social suicide here either) and if the price for being 10% richer is a significant decrease in living standard for the 10% poorest, then I'm saying 'No Thank You'.
However, we have really, really large problems with immigrants coming here and seeing everything they get for free (somewhat understandably too, most of them come from shitty places). Our way of society only works as long as people accepts the implied social contract of 'You Own The Government, exploiting it hurts society and leaves us all worse off' and actually prefer working.. and it's on this background you need to analyze alot of the problems Europe is having with immigration and integration.
To the ones wondering if France is big enough a market to force change;
The same thing has been happening in both sweden and Norway. And atleast for Norways case, I don't actually think there's any doubt iTunes are breaking Norwegian law. I mean, seriously.. retro-actively changing the terms of a deal, and claiming the other party has no right to reject or get out the deal is as silly as it gets.
As it stands, if the iTunes EULA was legal and enforcable they could just add a clause saying 'Give us all your money!', and you'd be legally bound to do it.
I was halfway into writing an angry comment about how "market analists" always dramatize about the need to embraze the latest buzzwords when I actually decided to read the 'article'...
... which consisted of 4 Murdoch quotes, which were balanced and non-stupid.. and admittedly, what everyone is thinking anyways.
What is interesting though, is how I expected the article to be crap.. Slashdot has linked so many obvious flame-bait stories it's ridicilous. Seriously; why, oh why, do I read this site?
Urg, how many times have you read that meme?.. and you still didn't get the gist of it?!
The point is to supply two premises which does does not lead the conclusion 4, and leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure 3.. you know, as a horrible, horrible business plan.
In your point however, premise 1 and premise 2 certainly leads to conclusion 4, leaving step 3 totally f*cking uneccesary.. and as a plan it thus actually makes sense (although it may or may not be doable, but that's for the feasibility analysis to discover:))
First off, redundancy factors make failure and meltdown a near impossibility. Unless an operator is asleep in the control room, and then deaf and blind to all of the alarms and lights that go off when a coolant failure might occur, the reactor will be shut down. [...]
Fear of meltdown is an irrational, uninformed position, and an easy fear to maintain through ignorance.
That's what they said last time too.
I had no technical expertise to validate their claims then, and I have no technical expertise to validate their claims now.
You know, back in the pre-phases of the Iraq-invasion, when the citizens of Europe where out protesting and an overwhelming majority was against the war, the majority of our politician truely preferred licking Bush's balls. This is pretty much the same deal, politicians only pay lipservice to 'the will of people' and will show themselves as the corrupt m*therf*ckers they are whenever something vaguely important comes up.
Which leads me to wonder; where is the disrepancy between what the people want and what the politicians do, the largest; Autharitan China or Democrazied West? Personally, I think the answer is really, really scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not that I don't agree with your point, but I just want to point out;
Since the real world isn't binary with two extremes only, 'not nearly unbreakable does' not imply 'easily hackable'.
Only if you have money.
If you have to resort to corporations, who almost by definition are out to make money short-term, instead of politicians, who are there to build a better society long-term (that's why you voted for'em right? right?) there is something seriously, seriously wrong with your society.
Norwegian :)
Now, 'begging the question' as good as always means the article is practically begging the question to be asked; ie the question is written in bold-faced gigantic invisible letters inbetween the lines and you'd be a bloody retard if you didn't spot it.
'Begging the question' might have been used for a fairly limited context in old times. But I don't care much about that, since old times aren't now. More importantly the phrase actually does make sense in the modern usage. The wikipedia article states that it's used as a synomym for 'raises the question', which I really don't agree with. There is a slight difference in who the one raising the question is. With 'raises the question' the subtext is "I'm so smart that I'm asking this really insightfull question', while with 'begs the question' the subtext is 'this is so stupid, anybody reading this will point this out!'.
In my opinion, holding on to precision and subtetlies in language is a very worthwhile cause. Crusading against stuff that actually makes sense just because your grandfather used the phrase slightly differently is just inane. Language is just communication. If a phrase actually is easy enough for a foreigner to actually understand the first time he's reading it, there is nothing bloody wrong with phrase. If anything, there might be something wrong the archaic definition!
Some things are worth keeping in mind.
... which versions were more fun?
Sadly, I don't think any of them are for sale .. either way, seems well-tailored enough for me. I mean, if you're 37, there's a good chance you've started your mid-life crisis, and you seriously can't go wrong with beatifull women then :)
Think this was bad? Just wait until the dupes start showing up.
If they made this for video, It'd be interesting to see how many commercials, award-ceremonies and various news-shows that would be labeled as soft-porn.
Can't say you could call it a bug either...
Well, in all fairness, I'm actually for banning American porn.
The bang! bang! 'enjoy what I'm giving ya!'-mentality that seem so amazingly permeant throughout it is fucking degrading and has bloody nothing to do with real life. It teaches people to view women as objects and not as actual persons, which really, really is a dangerous line of thought. Impersonalisation of sex is a bad, bad thing.
My own experiences with young Americans and their views on sex has basically lead me to believe that majority of you are semi-psychopathic, ie unable to empathise and recognize that other people are actual people with feelings. This is scary.
FYI VISA's working fine over here in Europe. Haven't heard of anybody having trouble ever, and I have quite a few poker-playing friends.
They aren't taking any moral highground either, the complaints themselves are merely stating that these terms are believed to be contraire to respectivly Norwegian and Swedish law.
I'd say that's the difference between a working government/society and a broken one. I've long held that competence, intelligence and honesty is way more important than political agenda for politicians, and I suspect that the same holds for nations. It doesn't matter *that* much how you go about creating a society as long as you're not bloody incompetent.
Socialism is the difference between a first-world nation, and a third world bananna-republic shithole
Yes, I agree. The US has many socialists traits that have been pivotal to your success; first and foremost excellent government funding of university research. :)
However, while these are certainly relevant when you're comparing West to Third World, my comment was on the other hand in the context of comparing US and European definitions of freedom. While some "socialist" traits are shared, we do have a shitload more of them
Oh, what magical rule said so? I mean, that *you* decided to give the government several rights other corporations doesn't have is *your* decision. If the majority wants it, the governments monopoly on legal violence will end. In the end, the government is just as much bound as it owns laws as other corporations are (provided you're still living in a liberal democrazy of course).
It comes at another price, too: asesrting a right to "live a nice life" implies a right to force other people to pay for it.
A right to force people to pay for it? You make that sound like it's a bad thing, and that there is some implied right 'not to pay for others'. Morality is a fickle thing; there is no implied right for either case. The cornerstone of the democrazy is the tyrany of the majority. We choose what society we want to build, and then we live in it. There is nothing more to it.
If the majority of the citizens want everybody to do something, then that is the way it will be. If you have moral qualms about this, feel free to lobby for some other form of government (China is having quite alot of success with tyrany of the minority nowadays :))
AFAIK Europe, and especially Scandinivia, has always had very different definitions of freedom than the US.
As I see it, the American definition is pretty much 'The Freedom To Be F*cked Over'. It has led to unparallelled economic efficiency, a reasonably succesfull forced integration of minorities (no cuddling and not too much bullshit; get a job and stop complaining!), however also it has lead to corrupt(er) politicians, massive corporate power and extremely few consumer rights. Not too bad of a deal, it turned you into a superpower, but I'm really, really not sure if it gave you happiness.
You believe in the freedom of speech, but for some obscene reason it only applies to government censorship. Which, to me, seems totally ludicrous and as absurd as it gets; after all The Government is just a reasonably large corporation with you as the owner. In a liberal democrazy it's about the only thing you don't need protection from; because it's about the only thing you have control over (mark, I come from a small country. I've met ministers and high goverment officials on random places like the street, shopping at the local supermarket etc on numerous occasions (and I'm not even from the capital).. and so have pretty much everyone)
On the other hand, 'we' (I do atleast) believe in the freedom to live a nice life. Healthcare, pensions, social security and extensive consumer rights comes at a price though; economic efficiency. However, I believe we're more than rich enough to pay it. My family have no problems only having one car (walking to the grocery store isn't social suicide here either) and if the price for being 10% richer is a significant decrease in living standard for the 10% poorest, then I'm saying 'No Thank You'.
However, we have really, really large problems with immigrants coming here and seeing everything they get for free (somewhat understandably too, most of them come from shitty places). Our way of society only works as long as people accepts the implied social contract of 'You Own The Government, exploiting it hurts society and leaves us all worse off' and actually prefer working.. and it's on this background you need to analyze alot of the problems Europe is having with immigration and integration.
[/rant] :)
I know it's not enforcable, hence the qualifier if this EULA was enforcable. :)
The same thing has been happening in both sweden and Norway.
And atleast for Norways case, I don't actually think there's any doubt iTunes are breaking Norwegian law. I mean, seriously.. retro-actively changing the terms of a deal, and claiming the other party has no right to reject or get out the deal is as silly as it gets.
As it stands, if the iTunes EULA was legal and enforcable they could just add a clause saying 'Give us all your money!', and you'd be legally bound to do it.
How's it going with your consitution nowadays?
What is interesting though, is how I expected the article to be crap.. Slashdot has linked so many obvious flame-bait stories it's ridicilous. Seriously; why, oh why, do I read this site?
sadly, that phenomen is becoming more and more relevant again.
The point is to supply two premises which does does not lead the conclusion 4, and leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure 3.. you know, as a horrible, horrible business plan.
In your point however, premise 1 and premise 2 certainly leads to conclusion 4, leaving step 3 totally f*cking uneccesary.. and as a plan it thus actually makes sense (although it may or may not be doable, but that's for the feasibility analysis to discover :))
[...]
Fear of meltdown is an irrational, uninformed position, and an easy fear to maintain through ignorance.
That's what they said last time too.
I had no technical expertise to validate their claims then, and I have no technical expertise to validate their claims now.
Concurrent sentencing is not used in Europe.
Which leads me to wonder; where is the disrepancy between what the people want and what the politicians do, the largest; Autharitan China or Democrazied West? Personally, I think the answer is really, really scary.