Not working for the NRA on the 2d amendment is a bogus example. The NRA/gun nuts purposefully re-interpret the second amendment &em: ignoring the phrase "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia," and its intent &em: to meet their desires. Just because the ACLU won't argue that every deer-despising hunter should be allowed to use a fully-automatic AK-47 with teflon-coated, hollow-points to ensure he can get his animal, just means they know how to read and comprehend, not bend.
Any two people probably are six degrees or less apart. People who live in what we optomistically call western civilisation are down to about 4 degrees currently.
FUD! There were some studies done in the early 90s that supported the idea of short networks, the 6 or less degrees of separation. However, they were highly flawed. The sample groups started with well-connected ivy-league (Brown Univ.) students as their primary test cases. Note the first hyphenated phrase. If you start with well-connected people, the number of jumps in a network needed to connect to another specific, also well-connected person, is going to be very short.
The Joe convict example, above, actually shortcuts reality for the avg. person. By using a convict you've put person 1 into the government structure. Whether convict, civil servant, soldier, or etc. anyone within govt. will be a short chain of separation from the president.
Go talk to someone working on an assembly line (there's got to be some left, despite Wal-Mart), and start your metric there. The avg. chain of separation is for the avg. person notably higher than just 6 degrees.
So in other words, you have no privacy. You are now just as protected as the subjects of other totalitarian regimes. Big Deal.
Some of us value the rights guaranteed by the Constitution; enough to risk our lives protecting them. It's quite galling to have benefactors of sacrifice just dismiss freedom. If you don't value your constitutional rights, fine for you. Myself, I would prefer the constitution to remain meaningful.
I'm hoping Software Updater will find the new versions for my existing 'iLife' apps on the 16th, but considering that Safari 1.1 is still only available with Panther I'm not counting on it. Looks like the signficant freebie upgrades are going just be value add-ons to other purchases (free with new machine for iLife or OS upgrade for Safari), or independent revenue generators.
iView is okay for existing collections, and reorganizing them (especially with its ability to drag and drop to folders in the finder to organize, just as Graphic Converter's browser allows - tho' GKON also has a Panther Finder-like side bar, and did so back on OS 9).
However, iPhoto excels at automating uploading and organizing directly from a camera. That and the two have notably different methods of tracking your files; iView requires you to create, save and manage individual catalogs, and build folder organization for them; iPhoto builds a massive database that you can organize into separate and overlapping subsets without worrying about the file system structure.
It's more a personal choice than a clear superiority of a vs. b.
if you can talk yourself into spending another fifty bucks for a 16x increase in storage capacity, then spending another fifty bucks to get a 60x increase
Actually, most people who are more price sensitive won't see the second fifty as "just another $50." If $200 is an accessible price to them, making the 50% jump to $300 is a big difference. They might be more likely to stretch to one and a quarter times their budget, but one and a half times as much (plus tax) is a big difference.
On your budget it might not seem like much, but consider something even more expensive having the same scale pricing. For instance something barebones for $20,000 that really doesn't meet your needs very well. For $25,000 you get functionality that meets your needs, but for $30,000 you get all that and excess functionality. You could certainly use the extra functions eventually, but in the meantime that $5,000 bucks is something you either don't have, or could use for something else. Different incomes have different pricepoints.
However, back to the mini itself. It is going to be competing head-to-head with the 4GB Rio Nitrus. So, the choice is excellent industrial design and tiny form factor with an "it just works" interface vs. one fugly big honkering (for the capacity) player that let's you play those MS DRM files that expire.
If either the Nitrus or iPod Mini succeeds, it will be testament either way of how much the market values Apple's superior form and functionality driven design vs. just the functions.
Because it's been sooo loonnnng in development; it lost it's early momentum. I know, it's just one guy building it, but if he had recruited some help and worked out the rough spots iCab could have been the Mac browser. Now that there's so much competition, iCab hardly get's noticed.
It still has the best Download manager ever (e.g., go to this server, or path, or all linked pages at this address, get all of the site excluding.avi files using this un:pass, and put them in this folder), better than any standalone downloader app I've tried.
If you create a copy of Safari with a Unique Name (which you'll do if you simply use Command+D on the app/pkg in the Finder, i.e., Safari Copy), the new copy will lauch as a separate process. They'll both be ID'd as Safari in the menu bar, Dock, etc, but you can fix that by editing the appropriate resource string in the app copy.
Pre-OS X, creating app dupes was a good way to have different memory settings (e.g., lean Photoshop vs. all the RAM available Photoshop). Some apps would check for already launched copies and shake a finger at you before quitting, some didn't. The problems of concurrently running copies of the same app shouldn't apply in OS X (mostly memory addressing issues? IANAP), so I suspect you can do this with most apps in OS X.
The Dean/Meetup angle occured to me also. However, it doesn't yet fit his prediction. Dean certainly has gathered a significant following, but until he defeats Bush this doesn't actually qualify as fomenting social change. At this point Meetup is a phenomenal extension of affinity groups previously limited to classified ads for recruitment, but what real social change have they wrought.
Apple's software is far from Free -- at least the part of it that is for "real people".
Hmm, I pay for the OS but the free add-ons available are a music player, photo tool, easy to use DV editor, DVD authroing, a kick-ass web browser, good-enough email for most, scheduling software, a text editor (really a word processor) that opens Word docs and meets the needs of 99%, plus others, and there is an explosion of 3d-party freeware that supplants commercial software. I can run the GIMP et al.
I could certainly go on, but just what is it these "real-people" of yours needing that isn't available? Okay, so you have to pay for APPLs PPT replacement, but OO is available.
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. The line from spam site S doesn't lead straight to responsible party D. If it does, site S and party D are probably in different jurisdictions with differing laws regarding activity B.
Consider this, legal drinking age in country A is 18, in B 21. Person D goes from Country B to A to drink. Doing the activity in country B is still illegal, but the activity is not covered by B's laws.
In the case of spam, Spammer uploads programs and data to server in an unregulated country (UC) A, sets up site in UC B, sets up accounts in UC C. Part of this set up includes a web interface to UC A server. From country D, spammer visits site in UC A and initiates spam with a few clicks. The spam originates in UC A and all the others lines of responsiblity end in unregulated jurisdictions. Regulation ends at the border and the unethical spammer remains untouched.
The key is to create a uniform international law and jurisdiction. However, getting such cooperation is well nigh impossible.
It's not a question of allowing cc companies to reject payment. They already have that power. Just by including clauses to exclude specific businesses, as they do with child pornography. In the case of CP they use very broad definitions, broader than many government defs, to exclude anything remotely improper including art. Could art sites fight them in court? Sure. Can they afford to to the point of winning? Seldom.
Spammers are in the same boat. CC company's can, and should, deny service to spammers, but the CC Co's would have to actually research every business. Since someone looking to decieve could easily set up a CC merchant account for company X (the front) and recieve payment through division Y (the actual website) the CC Co. can be distanced long enough for the spammer to keep division Y unknown to the CC Co.
Unfortunately, any regulation, of any activity, depends on the penalties being enforceable against those without the ethics to abide to convention. Enforcement requires jurisdiction.
Could spam be the cause celeb that finally unites governments world-wide similar to the alien invasions of science fiction?
Actually theres a good chance those CDs violate the privacy laws of most EU countries
I doubt that. The errors in the list clearly indicate that the harvesting has extracted the addresses from publicly accessible locations, web pages, usenet postings etc. How is compiling public information a violation of privacy laws?
In the rape situation you describe, there is no corroborating complaintant.
Here, the barkeep is the complaintant. His testimony would be a shaky basis for a case, but with the pictures as added evidence, it's much easier to prove....oh and uhm IANAL
In many states public nudity is a 'crime' ranked with other sex offenses. Perhaps milder with penalties but with the sex offender tag and registration included. Since it's Nebraska, I suspect it's one such state.
Considering today's technology, photographs should never be admissable as evidence unless the source can verified and possibility of tampering is eliminated...
Mbr>
Since the photo came from her, and it is her web site that admits they were taken in the bar in question... this really isn't an issue, in this case. Really.
Actually, the source may be less questionable, but to claim that they are definitely depict an illegal act could be questioned in light of current technology. There could be the motivation to provide images that site visitors are more interested in, without actually participating in an illegal act. Depicting fiction is a common thing we do. Hmm, let's see, have you heard of these things called movies?
With today's tech it is possible to fake images. No digital, or digitized, photograph should be viewed as proof of anything. Bring me negatives, with enlargements large enough to see film grain and not square pixels, and I might trust them as evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Flash, fool.
Not working for the NRA on the 2d amendment is a bogus example. The NRA/gun nuts purposefully re-interpret the second amendment &em: ignoring the phrase "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia," and its intent &em: to meet their desires. Just because the ACLU won't argue that every deer-despising hunter should be allowed to use a fully-automatic AK-47 with teflon-coated, hollow-points to ensure he can get his animal, just means they know how to read and comprehend, not bend.
Six? Nah! Just one between: Shrub > Bin Laden Family > Osama. It's a short trip.
FUD! There were some studies done in the early 90s that supported the idea of short networks, the 6 or less degrees of separation. However, they were highly flawed. The sample groups started with well-connected ivy-league (Brown Univ.) students as their primary test cases. Note the first hyphenated phrase. If you start with well-connected people, the number of jumps in a network needed to connect to another specific, also well-connected person, is going to be very short.
The Joe convict example, above, actually shortcuts reality for the avg. person. By using a convict you've put person 1 into the government structure. Whether convict, civil servant, soldier, or etc. anyone within govt. will be a short chain of separation from the president.
Go talk to someone working on an assembly line (there's got to be some left, despite Wal-Mart), and start your metric there. The avg. chain of separation is for the avg. person notably higher than just 6 degrees.
Some of us value the rights guaranteed by the Constitution; enough to risk our lives protecting them. It's quite galling to have benefactors of sacrifice just dismiss freedom. If you don't value your constitutional rights, fine for you. Myself, I would prefer the constitution to remain meaningful.
Actually, the author didn't get OS X until April 2003. So, more like 9 Months.
I'm hoping Software Updater will find the new versions for my existing 'iLife' apps on the 16th, but considering that Safari 1.1 is still only available with Panther I'm not counting on it. Looks like the signficant freebie upgrades are going just be value add-ons to other purchases (free with new machine for iLife or OS upgrade for Safari), or independent revenue generators.
However, iPhoto excels at automating uploading and organizing directly from a camera. That and the two have notably different methods of tracking your files; iView requires you to create, save and manage individual catalogs, and build folder organization for them; iPhoto builds a massive database that you can organize into separate and overlapping subsets without worrying about the file system structure.
It's more a personal choice than a clear superiority of a vs. b.
I suspect the opposite is true. The top pricepoint on the mini will remain $250. The capacity will increased and the 4GB will get a price-drop.
Actually, most people who are more price sensitive won't see the second fifty as "just another $50." If $200 is an accessible price to them, making the 50% jump to $300 is a big difference. They might be more likely to stretch to one and a quarter times their budget, but one and a half times as much (plus tax) is a big difference.
On your budget it might not seem like much, but consider something even more expensive having the same scale pricing. For instance something barebones for $20,000 that really doesn't meet your needs very well. For $25,000 you get functionality that meets your needs, but for $30,000 you get all that and excess functionality. You could certainly use the extra functions eventually, but in the meantime that $5,000 bucks is something you either don't have, or could use for something else. Different incomes have different pricepoints.
However, back to the mini itself. It is going to be competing head-to-head with the 4GB Rio Nitrus. So, the choice is excellent industrial design and tiny form factor with an "it just works" interface vs. one fugly big honkering (for the capacity) player that let's you play those MS DRM files that expire.
If either the Nitrus or iPod Mini succeeds, it will be testament either way of how much the market values Apple's superior form and functionality driven design vs. just the functions.
iCab did it in late '99 or 1Q 2000
Because it's been sooo loonnnng in development; it lost it's early momentum. I know, it's just one guy building it, but if he had recruited some help and worked out the rough spots iCab could have been the Mac browser. Now that there's so much competition, iCab hardly get's noticed.
It still has the best Download manager ever (e.g., go to this server, or path, or all linked pages at this address, get all of the site excluding .avi files using this un:pass, and put them in this folder), better than any standalone downloader app I've tried.
A refinement, iCab had Ad blocking via common ad image sizes (e.g., 470x68), and you could add new sizes. It didn't have Pop-Up Blocking.
Actually, iCab had adblocking first at least on the Mac. I don't know when OW might have added this to NS.
Pre-OS X, creating app dupes was a good way to have different memory settings (e.g., lean Photoshop vs. all the RAM available Photoshop). Some apps would check for already launched copies and shake a finger at you before quitting, some didn't. The problems of concurrently running copies of the same app shouldn't apply in OS X (mostly memory addressing issues? IANAP), so I suspect you can do this with most apps in OS X.
The Dean/Meetup angle occured to me also. However, it doesn't yet fit his prediction. Dean certainly has gathered a significant following, but until he defeats Bush this doesn't actually qualify as fomenting social change. At this point Meetup is a phenomenal extension of affinity groups previously limited to classified ads for recruitment, but what real social change have they wrought.
I could certainly go on, but just what is it these "real-people" of yours needing that isn't available? Okay, so you have to pay for APPLs PPT replacement, but OO is available.
Consider this, legal drinking age in country A is 18, in B 21. Person D goes from Country B to A to drink. Doing the activity in country B is still illegal, but the activity is not covered by B's laws.
In the case of spam, Spammer uploads programs and data to server in an unregulated country (UC) A, sets up site in UC B, sets up accounts in UC C. Part of this set up includes a web interface to UC A server. From country D, spammer visits site in UC A and initiates spam with a few clicks. The spam originates in UC A and all the others lines of responsiblity end in unregulated jurisdictions. Regulation ends at the border and the unethical spammer remains untouched.
The key is to create a uniform international law and jurisdiction. However, getting such cooperation is well nigh impossible.
Spammers are in the same boat. CC company's can, and should, deny service to spammers, but the CC Co's would have to actually research every business. Since someone looking to decieve could easily set up a CC merchant account for company X (the front) and recieve payment through division Y (the actual website) the CC Co. can be distanced long enough for the spammer to keep division Y unknown to the CC Co.
Unfortunately, any regulation, of any activity, depends on the penalties being enforceable against those without the ethics to abide to convention. Enforcement requires jurisdiction.
Could spam be the cause celeb that finally unites governments world-wide similar to the alien invasions of science fiction?
Now, where is that powder blue crayon?
I doubt that. The errors in the list clearly indicate that the harvesting has extracted the addresses from publicly accessible locations, web pages, usenet postings etc. How is compiling public information a violation of privacy laws?
I just want to know where it is, not where it is at.
Here, the barkeep is the complaintant. His testimony would be a shaky basis for a case, but with the pictures as added evidence, it's much easier to prove. ...oh and uhm IANAL
In many states public nudity is a 'crime' ranked with other sex offenses. Perhaps milder with penalties but with the sex offender tag and registration included. Since it's Nebraska, I suspect it's one such state.
This is different than a traffic ticket.
Actually, the source may be less questionable, but to claim that they are definitely depict an illegal act could be questioned in light of current technology. There could be the motivation to provide images that site visitors are more interested in, without actually participating in an illegal act. Depicting fiction is a common thing we do. Hmm, let's see, have you heard of these things called movies?
With today's tech it is possible to fake images. No digital, or digitized, photograph should be viewed as proof of anything. Bring me negatives, with enlargements large enough to see film grain and not square pixels, and I might trust them as evidence.