That translation got botched. Instead of "collective" use you should read "public" use, in the sense of public reproduction (i.e., DJing, ambient music, playing a DVD on a restaurant, etc...). Any jurisdiction which followed the french tradition of copyright law bases their copyright law on a couple of principles, which are:
The artist is entitled to a compensation for accessing his work of art
Everyone should be able to have access to art and education free from any restrictions and independent of their social and economical status
Those principles are made compatible through the right to freely access and distribute any work of art without an express authorization by the artist if and only if no one profits from it (i.e., the only part which has the right to profit from a work of art is none other than it's author) and if their distribution doesn't have a considerate effect on the work's commercialization. As a consequence, as the public reproduction of a work of art is seen as a way for someone to profit from it (attract clients, boost sales, generate added value on a service, etc..) then, following the french copyright tradition, it also constitutes a no-no.
If by "invasion" you mean an armed spearhead blitzkrieging into a territory then you are right. Yet, that is ineffective if you can't resupply your troops. That's where the train becomes vital, to keep up your logistics effort going and to avoid hindering your blitzkrieging advances just because you have to wait for the supply truck to catch up.
And for a bit of cultural trivia, Spain and Portugal adopted the Iberian gauge with this very purpose in mind: to obstruct a possible Napoleonic invasion.
I run a couple of small FLOSS projects and I have to confess that producing documentation is by far the most painful task that I need to accomplish. It basically demands that you put down in writing something which, as you've just spent a considerable slice of time which may amount to years writing it, to your own eyes is so blindingly obvious to use that you shouldn't be wasting your time writing about it. Adding to that, it's frustrating to document code because as the source code is easily accessible anyone can just fire up a text editor and read it.
To make matters worse, sometimes you are forced to rewrite a portion of your code. When you do that, if you already have some documentation written then you are forced to go back, find any reference to that particular behaviour and rewrite it to reflect your changes. And pray to God that you don't have to yet again rewrite everything all over again (or write a new copy of the docs) to reflect a minor version. Tools like Doxygen do help mitigate this problem but they are only good enough to handle code references, and they do that at expense of filling the project with long winded comments which, if you happen to use an editor which doesn't support code folding all that well, make up reading and writing code a bit needlessly complicated.
Ignoring some other nasty aspects of writing/maintaining a documentation, at least to me documentation boils down to wasting your time. It's a task which doesn't have any noticeable positive feedback and it always feels like you are completely wasting your time with fluff tasks. After all, if you've written an excellent documentation then your users will simply read it and go on with their lives while you never get to hear about it.
But although that's my personal view regarding producing documentation I also understand the need for it. It's extremely important to provide (and also have available) a decent documentation. Without it your users (and sometimes even you) are left disoriented and forced to waste time with basic things. But that won't make the job of generating it any more enjoyable than it already is.
You got to be kidding. The issue here, which I pointed out in the post to which you replied, is defamation. Chavez complained that a website posted completely unfounded and made up allegations of how a cabinet minister was assassinated. It's defamation, pure and simple. That's what Chavez is complaining about. How exactly do you jump from "defamation is a crime and must be punished" to "OMG he wants to kill online forums!" ?
Your accusation is amusing, to say the least. If you happen to live in a civilized society then your legal system will consider defamation to be a crime and will punish those who engage in spreading lies with the intention to inflict damage. We get routine news reports on how regular, common people like you and me use the legal system to defend themselves from other people who do just that on online forums and social networking sites. Do those people want to "kill online forums" ? Does that make them dictators? Obviously not.
Or just because it's Chavez who does that then it is suddenly evil and anti-democratic?
I don't get it. Chavez complained about defamation campaigns and even rally calls to execute yet another coup d'etat on Chavez. He complained that that sort of actions are illegal and therefore shouldn't be allowed to happen. Where exactly did you started reading and where exactly did you base yourself to claim that what he wants is "control" the media?
This report provides a great opportunity to see how the anti-Chavez croud is prone to knee-jerk reactions while so poorly informed. The thing is, the report which this slashdot post is based on only mentions that Chavez complained about a specific website posting false information. More specifically, the offending website, which is ran by an anti-Chavez faction, made up a story about how one of Chavez' cabinet ministers was assassinated and kept the made up story on it's site for days, although it was repeatedly contacted and informed that the minister was, in fact, alive and well. Chavez' coment is nothing more than a complain that just because it's the internet you shouldn't be allowed to dedicate itself to defamation and intentionally spread false information. And suddenly he is labelled as a dictator hell-bent on destroying openness? What twisted train of thought leads you from a) you shouldn't spread lies to b) no freedom for you?
The thing is, this is yet another example on how hell-bent some people are on attacking Chavez. For example, imagine that a media company such as Fox/CNN/whatever decided to run stories on how Bush/Obama was assassinated. Imagine that that media company decided not only to post that information but also kept it up for days, although it was repeatedly contacted to be informed that no, Bush/Obama was still very much alive. If, after that, Bush/Obama complained that you shouldn't post false information to your heart's content, would that make Bush/Obama dictators who hate freedom and want to wage war on openness? Heck, what if it was your very death that the website announced? Would you enjoy having to go around contacting everyone you could informing that you were still very much alive? Wouldn't you want that site to stop spreading those lies? Wouldn't you want that sort of action to be illegal? Of course you would. But suddenly, if Chavez mentions it then he becomes an evil, anti-freedom dictator? Go figure.
There are a lot of irrational, ill-informed anti-Chavez militants around and they don't hate Chavez because of anything he actually did. In fact, they don't base their hatred on anything. Their hatred for Chavez is their starting point and they pick up from there, grasping at straws to try to justify they hatred. Those irrational, anti-Chavez militants make it a point to accuse him of being a dictator although he is holding a democratically appointed position to which he was elected timeandagain and although he has been the target of multiplecoup attempts, all of which were reverted by none other than Venezuela's people. Is that what being a dictator is about?
Personally, I don't like Chavez. I believe he is a demagogue who, at best, is trying to revolutionize a society which can barely manage to function. Yet, I'm always left dumbfounded by the string of primal anti-Chavez sentiment which is based on nothing more than the ill-informed imagination of a hand-full of idiots who don't even know why they hate him. That is to be expected among the great unwashed masses but hell, this is supposed to be slashdot, a place where informed, educated people tend to read and post news. This sort of nonsense shouldn't take place here.
I don't get it. A website falsely claims that a government minister was assassinated and keeps posting it for days. So when Chavez complains that that particular website shouldn't be allowed to falsely claim that a minister was killed then Chavez is suddenly a dictator? Where exactly do you base that conclusion on?
If you had read Reuter's report you would know that Chavez' complain was due to a website posting an completely made up and unfounded news report that a senior minister and close aidee to Chavez was assassinated. That website knowingly reported that news and kept the report on it's site for days, although it was blatantly false. This news report covers Chavez' reaction to that, in which he criticizes the spread of false, made up information. He doesn't criticize openness.
The thing is, I bet your country doesn't allow absolute freedom of speech. If you live in a civilized country then your legal system will certainly have laws which are intended to punish multiple forms of defamation. Oddly enough, if you happened to read Reuter's report you would know that that's exactly what Chavez is defending here. So exactly where do you base yourself to accuse Chavez of wanting to fight openness?
I, as a former conservative Christian (now an atheist), find it strange that they feel that god needs the government's help to promote his message.
It won't be so strange if you start seeing those moves not as what they are made to appear, which is promoting God's message, but what they really are, which is yet another step in the continuous power grab by these cults.
Now that we are in the business of popping out silly ideas, then why not hold commercial software accountable for their own security bugs in their products and make them liable to civil damages. All engineering fields have that, why not IT? If we need to solve a problem then we impose incentives to eliminate it. No one will ever eliminate a security problem by subsidizing an industry which relies on security problems for it's livelihood.
Here's how people arrived at that conclusion while being in their right mind:
OP: Premise given, concluding it's safe.
You: List of examples attempting to discount premise.
Re OP: Debunks some examples, questions effective use the remaining ones. Notes anti-science behavior.
Re You: Discounts claiming a position.
Me: Attempts to explain the Re OP's assumption. Requests clarification.
Anyone who has adequate reading comprehension skills and is in their right mind would never have come to that conclusion because, as anyone can attest after reading the comments, what happened was:
dmaurov: Something (exposure to mobile carrier antenna radio waves) isn't dangerous because an authoritative organization (the FCC) doesn't say it's dangerous.
me: Something isn't automatically safe just because an authoritative organization doesn't claim it's dangerous nor restricts it's use. To demonstrate, here's a list of examples of dangerous stuff which is/has been used without government agency restrictions.
c6gunner:Out of your half a dozen examples, one (powerline/leukemia) is a correlation and another has been used to fight a disease. ZOMG you want to avoid everything, ZOMG you hate science.
me:: I never said I "want to avoid everything", nor did I said I "hated science". Don't put words into my mouth
This is what any reasonable person would read,as it is what was actually been said.
I think I might have figured out what's going on here. The OP gave an actionable premise and conclusion. Therefore, we took your retort also to be actionable. Since a precise action was not given, it was assumed that your platform is "don't follow the OP's advice."
The GP (c6gunner) failed to put up a remotely relevant case for multiple reasons. First, he clearly showed he failed to even understand the point of this whole thread (i.e., something is automatically safe if no state agency claims it's dangerous). Second, out of the 6 cases which I presented, he only managed to confront two of them and did it very poorly thought out manner. To be more precise, in one (the leukemia) he posted a link to an article trying to debunk a study which not only doesn't have any relation to the one I've provided but also looks into completely different issues associated with the underlying case. In the other (DDT) c6gunner didn't even tried to attack it and only managed to claim that DDT was used to fight a disease. As that, as it is easy to see, not only doesn't make DDT less dangerous but it also doesn't come even close to disprove my proposition (i.e., DDT has been widely deployed while no state agency claimed it to be dangerous, which disproves OP's allegation and the origin of this thread).
And if that isn't enough c6gunner ends his post by trying to attribute to me a couple of very idiotic statement I never made (ZOMG avoid everything, ZOMG I hate science).
I guess the only thing to ask at this point is, if you had no intention in either agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's concluded actions, what were we suppose to take away from your initial post?
I believe it's easy to see by reading my original post that what has been said was that something isn't inherently and perfectly safe just because a state agency doesn't claim it is dangerous. The OP said otherwise and I've written that post to disprove the point the OP made (the FCC didn't say it's bad so it must be good).
Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"?
Everything in between "Is that why" and "widely deployed".
If you believe that pointing out stuff such as "asbestos is bad for your health" is the words of "a paranoid nutjob" then I believe that you are a disturbed individual who seriously should deal with your issues.
to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems
No, you replied with a bunch of FUD.
I'm not sure if your reading comprehension skills are that appalling or if you are simply a poor troll who isn't thinking things all the way through.
I haven't implied any of that and I can't see how anyone in their right mind could read that absurd allegation from what I've wrote, much less if we bear in mind the post I replied to.
Moreover, I haven't proposed anything, which therefore means that there is no proposal to clarify.
You failed to see the point. This isn't a Malaria Vs DDT issue nor did anyone claimed that DDT should never be used at all. The point is that there is quite a lot of stuff which is extensively used without any regulation or any attention from authorities, and yet it has been scientifically demonstrated that it's dangerous and harmful. I pointed that out to demonstrate that the OP's statement is blatantly false and terribly misguided.
He responded to you the way he did because you came off as a bit of a paranoid nutjob.
Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"? The OP claimed that, somehow, something which isn't regulated and widely available and extensively used is automatically unquestionably safe, to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems. There is no conspiracy anywhere to be seen and everything I've mentioned is publicly known.
And for the record, New Scientist is not what you would call a highly reputable organization. Linking them was your first mistake, after that few people will take you seriously.
If you feel you have a problem with the statement then you should demonstrate why it is false. If it isn't possible to claim that a statement is false then, no matter how fiercely you attack the messenger, the validity of it's message will stay invariably true.
You've missed the point. The point is that just because something is widely deployed, accepted and free from any regulatory restriction it doesn't mean it is necessarily safe. There are plenty of stuff which has been scientifically demonstrated to be harmful and yet it has been made available and used without any restrictions being imposed.
Could you please point out exactly where I proposed any thing at all, let alone that everyone should "avoid everything"?
Please, do not pull this sort of idiotic stunt. I am pretty capable of saying crap by myself. I don't need you to try to put your words into my mouth, let alone that sort of nonsense.
Just because something is banal, widely used and is seen as an accepted practice it doesn't mean that it is perfectly safe and free from any nasty side effects. History has a pretty long damning list of cases where the dangers are only known after the stuff that causes them is widely deployed.
The LIVE video being overlayed in-place in the street view, following the camera pan in real-time?
A dude with a webcam was at the market and the webcam feed was used in the same way as the overlay pictures are used. How is that impressive?
For that matter what about the smooth zooming in/out of the map itself vs Google Map's stop-and redraw at next level.
You mean that irrelevant eye candy effect that google earth had since it was first released?
Bitch all you want about Microsoft, but it was a very impressive demo.
You don't use google maps/earth much, don't you?
Kudos to the software guys who developed this stuff.
As someone who's being developing software professionally for 30 years I tend to by cynical and blase, but stuff like this really is impressive and makes you stop and say "Wow!".
It makes me wonder if you are aware of the tools which have been available for, say, the past 5 years.
Maybe I'm the odd one out but I failed to notice anything impressive at all in that presentation. The bing maps presentation didn't showed anything which wasn't already available through google maps for years. What novelty was displayed in this bing maps presentation? Zoomable maps with multiple level of details depending on the zoom? No, that's ancient stuff. The ability to compile and present information on those maps along with the ability to use it in web applications? Not new either. The ability to check local shots from a scene? That's also old stuff. A 3D representation of the surrounding environment. No, that's also not it. In fact, the only stuff I've noticed which I never noticed on google maps/street view is the backpack streetview camera of sorts which mapped the interior of a market. Nevertheless, that's still far from impressive, as it's nothing more than just taking the streetview camera on a different trip out of the regular roadways.
So, knowing that, what exactly is there to be impressed?
More to the point, the "piracy" term refers to the commercial distribution of copyrighted works without the copyright owner's explicit authorization. If you download an album for your personal use or even if you upload it without getting any currency out of it you are not "pirating" anything. But the media companies sure want to tack that nasty term to everything they don't approve. After all, "unauthorized distribution for personal use" doesn't quite have that negative image associated with it. You need an image of some bearded, blood thirsty thief and murderer with a parrot on his shoulder to make believe that copying a file is somehow a terribly wrong thing to do.
More to the point, who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone? Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country's government to quench their citizen's ability to do that sort of thing? To put it in other words, who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country's populace?
More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys". When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the "internet driver's license", what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world. And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment. This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.
But hey, let's call it "driver's license", as it's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it's widely regarded by society as banal government grant. This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly. Let's not mention what it really is: a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie.
Slashdot Mirror
That translation got botched. Instead of "collective" use you should read "public" use, in the sense of public reproduction (i.e., DJing, ambient music, playing a DVD on a restaurant, etc...). Any jurisdiction which followed the french tradition of copyright law bases their copyright law on a couple of principles, which are:
Those principles are made compatible through the right to freely access and distribute any work of art without an express authorization by the artist if and only if no one profits from it (i.e., the only part which has the right to profit from a work of art is none other than it's author) and if their distribution doesn't have a considerate effect on the work's commercialization. As a consequence, as the public reproduction of a work of art is seen as a way for someone to profit from it (attract clients, boost sales, generate added value on a service, etc..) then, following the french copyright tradition, it also constitutes a no-no.
If by "invasion" you mean an armed spearhead blitzkrieging into a territory then you are right. Yet, that is ineffective if you can't resupply your troops. That's where the train becomes vital, to keep up your logistics effort going and to avoid hindering your blitzkrieging advances just because you have to wait for the supply truck to catch up.
And for a bit of cultural trivia, Spain and Portugal adopted the Iberian gauge with this very purpose in mind: to obstruct a possible Napoleonic invasion.
How exactly do you steal music?
I run a couple of small FLOSS projects and I have to confess that producing documentation is by far the most painful task that I need to accomplish. It basically demands that you put down in writing something which, as you've just spent a considerable slice of time which may amount to years writing it, to your own eyes is so blindingly obvious to use that you shouldn't be wasting your time writing about it. Adding to that, it's frustrating to document code because as the source code is easily accessible anyone can just fire up a text editor and read it.
To make matters worse, sometimes you are forced to rewrite a portion of your code. When you do that, if you already have some documentation written then you are forced to go back, find any reference to that particular behaviour and rewrite it to reflect your changes. And pray to God that you don't have to yet again rewrite everything all over again (or write a new copy of the docs) to reflect a minor version. Tools like Doxygen do help mitigate this problem but they are only good enough to handle code references, and they do that at expense of filling the project with long winded comments which, if you happen to use an editor which doesn't support code folding all that well, make up reading and writing code a bit needlessly complicated.
Ignoring some other nasty aspects of writing/maintaining a documentation, at least to me documentation boils down to wasting your time. It's a task which doesn't have any noticeable positive feedback and it always feels like you are completely wasting your time with fluff tasks. After all, if you've written an excellent documentation then your users will simply read it and go on with their lives while you never get to hear about it.
But although that's my personal view regarding producing documentation I also understand the need for it. It's extremely important to provide (and also have available) a decent documentation. Without it your users (and sometimes even you) are left disoriented and forced to waste time with basic things. But that won't make the job of generating it any more enjoyable than it already is.
That is a direct quote from a news report from 2007. That's when Bush was in office. That's why it says "yesterday".
We have some seriously desperate anti-Chavez mods around here in order for this post to get a +1 informative.
You got to be kidding. The issue here, which I pointed out in the post to which you replied, is defamation. Chavez complained that a website posted completely unfounded and made up allegations of how a cabinet minister was assassinated. It's defamation, pure and simple. That's what Chavez is complaining about. How exactly do you jump from "defamation is a crime and must be punished" to "OMG he wants to kill online forums!" ?
Your accusation is amusing, to say the least. If you happen to live in a civilized society then your legal system will consider defamation to be a crime and will punish those who engage in spreading lies with the intention to inflict damage. We get routine news reports on how regular, common people like you and me use the legal system to defend themselves from other people who do just that on online forums and social networking sites. Do those people want to "kill online forums" ? Does that make them dictators? Obviously not.
Or just because it's Chavez who does that then it is suddenly evil and anti-democratic?
I don't get it. Chavez complained about defamation campaigns and even rally calls to execute yet another coup d'etat on Chavez. He complained that that sort of actions are illegal and therefore shouldn't be allowed to happen. Where exactly did you started reading and where exactly did you base yourself to claim that what he wants is "control" the media?
This report provides a great opportunity to see how the anti-Chavez croud is prone to knee-jerk reactions while so poorly informed. The thing is, the report which this slashdot post is based on only mentions that Chavez complained about a specific website posting false information. More specifically, the offending website, which is ran by an anti-Chavez faction, made up a story about how one of Chavez' cabinet ministers was assassinated and kept the made up story on it's site for days, although it was repeatedly contacted and informed that the minister was, in fact, alive and well. Chavez' coment is nothing more than a complain that just because it's the internet you shouldn't be allowed to dedicate itself to defamation and intentionally spread false information. And suddenly he is labelled as a dictator hell-bent on destroying openness? What twisted train of thought leads you from a) you shouldn't spread lies to b) no freedom for you?
The thing is, this is yet another example on how hell-bent some people are on attacking Chavez. For example, imagine that a media company such as Fox/CNN/whatever decided to run stories on how Bush/Obama was assassinated. Imagine that that media company decided not only to post that information but also kept it up for days, although it was repeatedly contacted to be informed that no, Bush/Obama was still very much alive. If, after that, Bush/Obama complained that you shouldn't post false information to your heart's content, would that make Bush/Obama dictators who hate freedom and want to wage war on openness? Heck, what if it was your very death that the website announced? Would you enjoy having to go around contacting everyone you could informing that you were still very much alive? Wouldn't you want that site to stop spreading those lies? Wouldn't you want that sort of action to be illegal? Of course you would. But suddenly, if Chavez mentions it then he becomes an evil, anti-freedom dictator? Go figure.
There are a lot of irrational, ill-informed anti-Chavez militants around and they don't hate Chavez because of anything he actually did. In fact, they don't base their hatred on anything. Their hatred for Chavez is their starting point and they pick up from there, grasping at straws to try to justify they hatred. Those irrational, anti-Chavez militants make it a point to accuse him of being a dictator although he is holding a democratically appointed position to which he was elected time and again and although he has been the target of multiple coup attempts, all of which were reverted by none other than Venezuela's people. Is that what being a dictator is about?
Personally, I don't like Chavez. I believe he is a demagogue who, at best, is trying to revolutionize a society which can barely manage to function. Yet, I'm always left dumbfounded by the string of primal anti-Chavez sentiment which is based on nothing more than the ill-informed imagination of a hand-full of idiots who don't even know why they hate him. That is to be expected among the great unwashed masses but hell, this is supposed to be slashdot, a place where informed, educated people tend to read and post news. This sort of nonsense shouldn't take place here.
I don't get it. A website falsely claims that a government minister was assassinated and keeps posting it for days. So when Chavez complains that that particular website shouldn't be allowed to falsely claim that a minister was killed then Chavez is suddenly a dictator? Where exactly do you base that conclusion on?
If you had read Reuter's report you would know that Chavez' complain was due to a website posting an completely made up and unfounded news report that a senior minister and close aidee to Chavez was assassinated. That website knowingly reported that news and kept the report on it's site for days, although it was blatantly false. This news report covers Chavez' reaction to that, in which he criticizes the spread of false, made up information. He doesn't criticize openness.
The thing is, I bet your country doesn't allow absolute freedom of speech. If you live in a civilized country then your legal system will certainly have laws which are intended to punish multiple forms of defamation. Oddly enough, if you happened to read Reuter's report you would know that that's exactly what Chavez is defending here. So exactly where do you base yourself to accuse Chavez of wanting to fight openness?
I, as a former conservative Christian (now an atheist), find it strange that they feel that god needs the government's help to promote his message.
It won't be so strange if you start seeing those moves not as what they are made to appear, which is promoting God's message, but what they really are, which is yet another step in the continuous power grab by these cults.
Now that we are in the business of popping out silly ideas, then why not hold commercial software accountable for their own security bugs in their products and make them liable to civil damages. All engineering fields have that, why not IT? If we need to solve a problem then we impose incentives to eliminate it. No one will ever eliminate a security problem by subsidizing an industry which relies on security problems for it's livelihood.
Here's how people arrived at that conclusion while being in their right mind:
OP: Premise given, concluding it's safe.
You: List of examples attempting to discount premise.
Re OP: Debunks some examples, questions effective use the remaining ones. Notes anti-science behavior.
Re You: Discounts claiming a position.
Me: Attempts to explain the Re OP's assumption. Requests clarification.
Anyone who has adequate reading comprehension skills and is in their right mind would never have come to that conclusion because, as anyone can attest after reading the comments, what happened was:
This is what any reasonable person would read,as it is what was actually been said.
I think I might have figured out what's going on here. The OP gave an actionable premise and conclusion. Therefore, we took your retort also to be actionable. Since a precise action was not given, it was assumed that your platform is "don't follow the OP's advice."
The GP (c6gunner) failed to put up a remotely relevant case for multiple reasons. First, he clearly showed he failed to even understand the point of this whole thread (i.e., something is automatically safe if no state agency claims it's dangerous). Second, out of the 6 cases which I presented, he only managed to confront two of them and did it very poorly thought out manner. To be more precise, in one (the leukemia) he posted a link to an article trying to debunk a study which not only doesn't have any relation to the one I've provided but also looks into completely different issues associated with the underlying case. In the other (DDT) c6gunner didn't even tried to attack it and only managed to claim that DDT was used to fight a disease. As that, as it is easy to see, not only doesn't make DDT less dangerous but it also doesn't come even close to disprove my proposition (i.e., DDT has been widely deployed while no state agency claimed it to be dangerous, which disproves OP's allegation and the origin of this thread).
And if that isn't enough c6gunner ends his post by trying to attribute to me a couple of very idiotic statement I never made (ZOMG avoid everything, ZOMG I hate science).
I guess the only thing to ask at this point is, if you had no intention in either agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's concluded actions, what were we suppose to take away from your initial post?
I believe it's easy to see by reading my original post that what has been said was that something isn't inherently and perfectly safe just because a state agency doesn't claim it is dangerous. The OP said otherwise and I've written that post to disprove the point the OP made (the FCC didn't say it's bad so it must be good).
Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"?
Everything in between "Is that why" and "widely deployed".
If you believe that pointing out stuff such as "asbestos is bad for your health" is the words of "a paranoid nutjob" then I believe that you are a disturbed individual who seriously should deal with your issues.
to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems
No, you replied with a bunch of FUD.
I'm not sure if your reading comprehension skills are that appalling or if you are simply a poor troll who isn't thinking things all the way through.
I haven't implied any of that and I can't see how anyone in their right mind could read that absurd allegation from what I've wrote, much less if we bear in mind the post I replied to.
Moreover, I haven't proposed anything, which therefore means that there is no proposal to clarify.
You failed to see the point. This isn't a Malaria Vs DDT issue nor did anyone claimed that DDT should never be used at all. The point is that there is quite a lot of stuff which is extensively used without any regulation or any attention from authorities, and yet it has been scientifically demonstrated that it's dangerous and harmful. I pointed that out to demonstrate that the OP's statement is blatantly false and terribly misguided.
He responded to you the way he did because you came off as a bit of a paranoid nutjob.
Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"? The OP claimed that, somehow, something which isn't regulated and widely available and extensively used is automatically unquestionably safe, to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems. There is no conspiracy anywhere to be seen and everything I've mentioned is publicly known.
And for the record, New Scientist is not what you would call a highly reputable organization. Linking them was your first mistake, after that few people will take you seriously.
If you feel you have a problem with the statement then you should demonstrate why it is false. If it isn't possible to claim that a statement is false then, no matter how fiercely you attack the messenger, the validity of it's message will stay invariably true.
You've missed the point. The point is that just because something is widely deployed, accepted and free from any regulatory restriction it doesn't mean it is necessarily safe. There are plenty of stuff which has been scientifically demonstrated to be harmful and yet it has been made available and used without any restrictions being imposed.
Could you please point out exactly where I proposed any thing at all, let alone that everyone should "avoid everything"?
Please, do not pull this sort of idiotic stunt. I am pretty capable of saying crap by myself. I don't need you to try to put your words into my mouth, let alone that sort of nonsense.
Is that why it has been observed that children living under power lines had a 70% increased risk of leukemia?? Is that why DDT has been sprayed directly onto people as a standard anti-mosquito practice?. Is that why asbestos has been used extensively as an insulator and structural material? Is that why lead paint has been the standard paint for home renovation and art? Is that why gasoline is carcinogenic? Is that why wet Portland cement causes serious health problems which include severe burns that damage nerves?
Just because something is banal, widely used and is seen as an accepted practice it doesn't mean that it is perfectly safe and free from any nasty side effects. History has a pretty long damning list of cases where the dangers are only known after the stuff that causes them is widely deployed.
Huh? Did you watch the whole presentation?
Yes, I did.
The flickr images displayed in 3-D in-place in the street view?
You mean like this?
The LIVE video being overlayed in-place in the street view, following the camera pan in real-time?
A dude with a webcam was at the market and the webcam feed was used in the same way as the overlay pictures are used. How is that impressive?
For that matter what about the smooth zooming in/out of the map itself vs Google Map's stop-and redraw at next level.
You mean that irrelevant eye candy effect that google earth had since it was first released?
Bitch all you want about Microsoft, but it was a very impressive demo.
You don't use google maps/earth much, don't you?
Kudos to the software guys who developed this stuff.
As someone who's being developing software professionally for 30 years I tend to by cynical and blase, but stuff like this really is impressive and makes you stop and say "Wow!".
It makes me wonder if you are aware of the tools which have been available for, say, the past 5 years.
Maybe I'm the odd one out but I failed to notice anything impressive at all in that presentation. The bing maps presentation didn't showed anything which wasn't already available through google maps for years. What novelty was displayed in this bing maps presentation? Zoomable maps with multiple level of details depending on the zoom? No, that's ancient stuff. The ability to compile and present information on those maps along with the ability to use it in web applications? Not new either. The ability to check local shots from a scene? That's also old stuff. A 3D representation of the surrounding environment. No, that's also not it. In fact, the only stuff I've noticed which I never noticed on google maps/street view is the backpack streetview camera of sorts which mapped the interior of a market. Nevertheless, that's still far from impressive, as it's nothing more than just taking the streetview camera on a different trip out of the regular roadways.
So, knowing that, what exactly is there to be impressed?
More to the point, the "piracy" term refers to the commercial distribution of copyrighted works without the copyright owner's explicit authorization. If you download an album for your personal use or even if you upload it without getting any currency out of it you are not "pirating" anything. But the media companies sure want to tack that nasty term to everything they don't approve. After all, "unauthorized distribution for personal use" doesn't quite have that negative image associated with it. You need an image of some bearded, blood thirsty thief and murderer with a parrot on his shoulder to make believe that copying a file is somehow a terribly wrong thing to do.
More to the point, who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone? Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country's government to quench their citizen's ability to do that sort of thing? To put it in other words, who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country's populace?
More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys". When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the "internet driver's license", what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world. And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment. This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.
But hey, let's call it "driver's license", as it's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it's widely regarded by society as banal government grant. This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly. Let's not mention what it really is: a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie.