People are making all sorts of comments in response to this article about what's really efficienct and what works the best.
Excuse me but has anyone stopped to consider the fundamental question of what business does the government have banning light bulbs in the first place?
Aliens are already here and do not recognize SETI or any human government or group organization. They deal with and judge each human being on their individual merits and faults. For more information, see http://www.alliesofhumanity.org/
You cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as though it were holy scripture. It isn't; it's a worthless political creation of the UN, which is nothing more than an international criminal syndicate which has a history of actively working against human freedom. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-527956831065413624
Anyone who would claim copyright as a "fundamental right" as though it was something that was inherent in our nature as human beings or given by God himself is spewing their own wishful thinking. The idea has no basis in logic. Copyright is an arbitrary creation of government based on the questionable premise that it somehow contributes to the greater good of society. Just because it's something we're all familiar with and accustomed to doesn't mean it is good or right.
On the other hand, the freedom of speech and communication has long been (correctly) recognized by many societies as a fundamental right. Any laws, copyright or otherwise, which conflict with the exercise of this right should under any just system of government be forced to yield. That means the rights of individual human beings to use P2P networks trumps the alleged "right" of corporate media entities to make profits.
A proper application of this principle might result in the movie and record industries going out of business. But protecting the right of free communication is more important than the existence of these special interest groups. If they failed, music and movies would not disappear. We might not see the blockbuster wonders costing hundreds of millions of dollars, but movies would still be made. People that wanted to see expensive movies might have to pay for them in advance through clubs of some sort. Art would continue to exist. And society would be free of the weighty burden of entrenched corporate entities that use mafia tactics to perpetually harass and extort the population.
Who says no actual invisibility cloak exists yet? Read "Into the Fringe," a 1992 book detailing the "alien" abduction accounts of Dr. Karla Turner and her family. Her son detailed one incident which involved what seems like just this sort of technology being used as part of an abduction event. Turner died (her closest friends and family believe she was murdered) by a suspicious fast-acting cancer in 1994. All relevant information is available free at KarlaTurner.org
The ETs who are here with us on Earth are far above humans in terms of intellectual capacity and technology. So THEY are the ones who decide how any communication with a particular human will occur. The human decides nothing.
For more information visit the Dr. Karla Turner memorial website at www.KarlaTurner.org
May 19, 2008
Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?'
Marc Sheppard
The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself.
On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question:
"How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"
How many, indeed?
Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
This decision is based on the premise that "search engines are not state actors" and thus have the right to choose what ads they will display. If the government were to pick and choose the same way, it would be a free speech violation.
Here's the problem: Google, and all major corporations really ARE government players, they're all bought and controlled by the same New World Order power structure that runs the government. It's just all done under the cloak of secrecy so we, the "ignorant masses," don't figure out what's going on. The truth is that this is the covert means by which America's Constitutional system of government has been dismantled, and by which the whole world is being delivered into the hands of a global dictatorship run by European banking elite.
Mandrake will do this for you during installation, so you won't need Partition Magic or anything else. Plus Mandrake is a very advanced, newbie friendly choice. That's what I'm dual booting myself.
They might be within their legal rights to ask that people sharing the FILE take it down, but not that Slashdot take down the link to the torrent. A link is just an address.
My point is that if you already have paid for the music once, why not just download the album off the internet and be done with it? Why should you have to pay ANY amount -- let alone $18 -- for the same music AGAIN? Morally speaking I think this is fine and appropriate.
Good point here actually - if you have purchased a copy of music on tape, CD, or vinyl, are you entitled to download the same exact music so you have it on your PC? It seems to me there's no question that this would be OK, you're just saving the time of "ripping" it yourself. RIAA would consider this "stealing" otherwise their whole case against P2P would be out the window.
Music you didn't buy may be a copyright infringement at best. It is NOT "stolen" since the owner did not lose anything.
Anyway this is just one more reason not to pay MS one single dollar for their OS or any of their other garbage, if it's going to pay for them to lobby against your freedom to choose your own formats and force you into THEIR choices for the best restrictions on your use of your own computer equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
People are making all sorts of comments in response to this article about what's really efficienct and what works the best. Excuse me but has anyone stopped to consider the fundamental question of what business does the government have banning light bulbs in the first place?
... Simply set your application firewall to block all IP traffic originating from Firefox.
Aliens are already here and do not recognize SETI or any human government or group organization. They deal with and judge each human being on their individual merits and faults. For more information, see http://www.alliesofhumanity.org/
You cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as though it were holy scripture. It isn't; it's a worthless political creation of the UN, which is nothing more than an international criminal syndicate which has a history of actively working against human freedom. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-527956831065413624
Anyone who would claim copyright as a "fundamental right" as though it was something that was inherent in our nature as human beings or given by God himself is spewing their own wishful thinking. The idea has no basis in logic. Copyright is an arbitrary creation of government based on the questionable premise that it somehow contributes to the greater good of society. Just because it's something we're all familiar with and accustomed to doesn't mean it is good or right.
On the other hand, the freedom of speech and communication has long been (correctly) recognized by many societies as a fundamental right. Any laws, copyright or otherwise, which conflict with the exercise of this right should under any just system of government be forced to yield. That means the rights of individual human beings to use P2P networks trumps the alleged "right" of corporate media entities to make profits.
A proper application of this principle might result in the movie and record industries going out of business. But protecting the right of free communication is more important than the existence of these special interest groups. If they failed, music and movies would not disappear. We might not see the blockbuster wonders costing hundreds of millions of dollars, but movies would still be made. People that wanted to see expensive movies might have to pay for them in advance through clubs of some sort. Art would continue to exist. And society would be free of the weighty burden of entrenched corporate entities that use mafia tactics to perpetually harass and extort the population.
This is nothing more than the public unveiling of a technology that has existed in the classified world since at least the early 1970's. Try the following Google search for more information: http://www.google.com/search?q=utah+prison+inmate+%22synthetic+telepathy%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Facebook is nothing more than a way for intel agencies to get you to fill out your own dossier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWz3G_gPhU
If you care about your privacy, try Startpage.com. They don't keep permanent records of your searches or record IP addresses.
Who says no actual invisibility cloak exists yet? Read "Into the Fringe," a 1992 book detailing the "alien" abduction accounts of Dr. Karla Turner and her family. Her son detailed one incident which involved what seems like just this sort of technology being used as part of an abduction event. Turner died (her closest friends and family believe she was murdered) by a suspicious fast-acting cancer in 1994. All relevant information is available free at KarlaTurner.org
The ETs who are here with us on Earth are far above humans in terms of intellectual capacity and technology. So THEY are the ones who decide how any communication with a particular human will occur. The human decides nothing. For more information visit the Dr. Karla Turner memorial website at www.KarlaTurner.org
Efforts to create cross species have been successful in the covert world for decades, including with humans. Stories of the actual application of this type of genetic engineering are only now beginning to be published, and certainly not for any cases involving humans. One recently published story involves the creation of goats with spider genes, allowing the goats to create silk: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F1%2Fhi%2Fsci%2Ftech%2F889951.stm&ei=vQqJSaGsHpmQsQOpzY2mBg&usg=AFQjCNHvc8y53tq9HFonHsM3RDNxB1RrWg&sig2=mL3a3essg9tEAaZz85YcKw
May 19, 2008 Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?' Marc Sheppard The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question: "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?" How many, indeed? Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
Water-Powered Car Incredible invention by Stanley Meyer (R.I.P.)
Water-Powered Car 2 Another one, just unveiled in 2008 by Japanese company Genepax.
Water-Powered Car 3 Denny Klein's car goes 100 miles on four ounces of water.
Water-Powered Car 4 Daniel Dingel runs his car on water, too.
Water-Powered Car 5 Yet another website on the subject.
This is just a distraction; I'd much prefer to drive a WATER-powered car, like one of these:
Water-Powered Car 1 Incredible invention by Stanley Meyer (R.I.P.)
Water-Powered Car 2 Another one, just unveiled in 2008 by Japanese company Genepax.
Water-Powered Car 3 Denny Klein's car goes 100 miles on four ounces of water.
Water-Powered Car 4 Daniel Dingel runs his car on water, too.
Water-Powered Car 5 Yet another website on the subject.
Phil Schneider (www.philschneider.org) was murdered for talking about how many elements are really known, versus what is taught in the schools.
This story is total corporate BS!!! As anyone who has seen the film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" can attest. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectricca r/
This decision is based on the premise that "search engines are not state actors" and thus have the right to choose what ads they will display. If the government were to pick and choose the same way, it would be a free speech violation.
Here's the problem: Google, and all major corporations really ARE government players, they're all bought and controlled by the same New World Order power structure that runs the government. It's just all done under the cloak of secrecy so we, the "ignorant masses," don't figure out what's going on. The truth is that this is the covert means by which America's Constitutional system of government has been dismantled, and by which the whole world is being delivered into the hands of a global dictatorship run by European banking elite.
Anyone interested in learning the secrets of how polygraphs (don't) work ought to take a look at the excellent website AntiPolygraph.org.
People should start referring to DRM this way, it's not "Rights" management. DRM = Digital Restrictions Management
NO, it's like complaining because Time Warner cable internet service forces its OWN ads on your screen on top of everything else.
Mandrake will do this for you during installation, so you won't need Partition Magic or anything else. Plus Mandrake is a very advanced, newbie friendly choice. That's what I'm dual booting myself.
They might be within their legal rights to ask that people sharing the FILE take it down, but not that Slashdot take down the link to the torrent. A link is just an address.
My point is that if you already have paid for the music once, why not just download the album off the internet and be done with it? Why should you have to pay ANY amount -- let alone $18 -- for the same music AGAIN? Morally speaking I think this is fine and appropriate.
Good point here actually - if you have purchased a copy of music on tape, CD, or vinyl, are you entitled to download the same exact music so you have it on your PC? It seems to me there's no question that this would be OK, you're just saving the time of "ripping" it yourself. RIAA would consider this "stealing" otherwise their whole case against P2P would be out the window.
Music you didn't buy may be a copyright infringement at best. It is NOT "stolen" since the owner did not lose anything. Anyway this is just one more reason not to pay MS one single dollar for their OS or any of their other garbage, if it's going to pay for them to lobby against your freedom to choose your own formats and force you into THEIR choices for the best restrictions on your use of your own computer equipment.
I can't find it on bugzilla, probably searching wrong way. is there a fix?