I'm suprised this hasn't been pointed out yet, but this thing will pick up a million false positives. even in a laboratory environment you get them, so something as uncontrolled as a sewer your looking at almost unusable results.
a short list of things that WILL go wrong:
people with valid uses for these drugs - yes there's a LOT of them
unknowns being added to the system - what if someone flushes something down the toilet that fools the system? this has no way to confirm what your sampling actually passed through a person
This could be used in job scams. be wary of job offers coming in from monster. always get a phone number from the phone book and ring them back to verify.
It seems to be a universal fact that to be in HR you need to always have an IQ lower then the people you are interviewing. It certainly has been in every company i've worked at.
remember, these are the type of people who were putting "5 years experience required in windows 2003 admin" in 2005.
err, so how the fuck do you propose we start? todays children are tomrrows parents, educate one generation to help break the cycle. Education is HOW you solve poverty for crying out loud. show me one country full of highly educated people that are in poverty. Your stupid ass proposal of just putting up a saftey net results in a welfare state and a downward spiral.
actually, this would require less bandwidth then before given the higher compression of h.264
what you can look forward to however, is the same ads in HD consuming your memory and cpu like never before as your pc attempts to cope with a multitude of h.264 video.
these guys are just piss ant small timers, fuck they don't even have 5000 users, do you think them shaping traffic on their network is going to do anything once it goes up stream to at&T?
He is being sued for the circumvention of a copy protection scheme - this guy is a cheap prick trying to reprint coupons, to break the protection scheme he removed the checks in the registry.
this has nothing to do with the deletetion of files in general.
seriously, why can't people see past this fact. if you want a secure environment, the first thing you do is remove desktops and put in terminals. terminals only failure is in the arena of graphs rendering, in which case i'm sure they can manage to lock down a few graphics workstations
no.. i'm just busy responding to the other 20 retarded comments posted. out of all of you only one person has made any kind of decent comment. read previous posts. otherwise.. your own silence is deafening?
well, i'd agree if you came to the kid and ASKED for a candy cane for the purpose of stabbing someone to death. using stupid examples isn't really going to prove your point.
Fact is if i own a cd and share it over the internet without the copyright holders permission, i'd be breaking the law. it's pretty cut and dry chaps.
I fail to see how the/. crowd can cry so foul of this given the way you all react when there's a report of a GPL violation. it's no different. just because you dislike the copyright holder, doesn't mean they are wrong.
gah this is why i shouldn't comment on/. - people don't read and think, they just post like fucking lemmings whatever the popular thinking is at the time.
REREAD my replies above. there is no "theory" about sharing infringing material, there's no way in hell it can be legal. that'd be like a drug dealer selling someone crack then claiming he thought the crackhead had a prescription for it so it was ok....
well, that's a different kettle of fish right there - if they can't show you were sharing anything, then your not a party to any kind of crime.
To be shown guilty the RIAA would need to prove they could download the files from you without breaking the law themselfs.
My point was that there is no situation where sharing infringing files can be legal. your car in front of the bank might not be used for a robbery, so of course you shouldn't be arrested (thank you captain obvious).
your right, that's a pretty BIG stretch, so my logic still stands i think. If that was the case and you could show you actually owned a purchased copy of ALL the mp3's on your hard drive the RIAA probably would bail out on the legal proceedings. they aren't nearly as stupid as you think
I wonder if a disclaimer to the effect that you must own a copy of said recordings to download them would hold up
grats on a retarded comment, unless you have the IQ of my pet cat you already know this whole story is about copyrighted music, not your stupid ubuntu torrent.
.. I believe they are correct here - enabling someone else to commit a crime is a crime in itself. And like it or not, sharing copyrighted material IS a crime in the USA at this point in time.
*sigh* guys like you always come out of the wood work and attempt to muddy the waters with the "it's just a theory" line.
there's no such thing as scientific FACT. Darwin first started out with a HYPOTHESIS, which he then tested and provided a proof for which was then examined by his peers till it progressed to the stage of being an accepted theory. the theory itself is very sound, but as new evidence comes to light the theory can be adjusted to improve it's accuracy. this is a concept you people just aren't able to grasp it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
a short list of things that WILL go wrong:
people with valid uses for these drugs - yes there's a LOT of them
unknowns being added to the system - what if someone flushes something down the toilet that fools the system? this has no way to confirm what your sampling actually passed through a person
if a does not equal b then you have a problem.
it's called division of power. don't allow any one person the power to perform such a hack, and it raises the bar a lot.
This could be used in job scams. be wary of job offers coming in from monster. always get a phone number from the phone book and ring them back to verify.
remember, these are the type of people who were putting "5 years experience required in windows 2003 admin" in 2005.
i smell a lawsuit
copyright is not property you moron. are you so stupid as to equate an mp3 with the same value as your own house?
err, so how the fuck do you propose we start? todays children are tomrrows parents, educate one generation to help break the cycle. Education is HOW you solve poverty for crying out loud. show me one country full of highly educated people that are in poverty. Your stupid ass proposal of just putting up a saftey net results in a welfare state and a downward spiral.
what you can look forward to however, is the same ads in HD consuming your memory and cpu like never before as your pc attempts to cope with a multitude of h.264 video.
This is a big con. why not donate directly instead of having your "donations" in the form of interest skimmed by the bank.
these guys are just piss ant small timers, fuck they don't even have 5000 users, do you think them shaping traffic on their network is going to do anything once it goes up stream to at&T?
this has nothing to do with the deletetion of files in general.
I've pointed this out before in similar clauses - the courts would never allow this because it reduces their powers.
wow, there's a shocker. tell me why we are giving these turds coverage again?
seriously, why can't people see past this fact. if you want a secure environment, the first thing you do is remove desktops and put in terminals. terminals only failure is in the arena of graphs rendering, in which case i'm sure they can manage to lock down a few graphics workstations
no.. i'm just busy responding to the other 20 retarded comments posted. out of all of you only one person has made any kind of decent comment. read previous posts. otherwise.. your own silence is deafening?
Fact is if i own a cd and share it over the internet without the copyright holders permission, i'd be breaking the law. it's pretty cut and dry chaps.
I fail to see how the /. crowd can cry so foul of this given the way you all react when there's a report of a GPL violation. it's no different. just because you dislike the copyright holder, doesn't mean they are wrong.
REREAD my replies above. there is no "theory" about sharing infringing material, there's no way in hell it can be legal. that'd be like a drug dealer selling someone crack then claiming he thought the crackhead had a prescription for it so it was ok....
To be shown guilty the RIAA would need to prove they could download the files from you without breaking the law themselfs. My point was that there is no situation where sharing infringing files can be legal. your car in front of the bank might not be used for a robbery, so of course you shouldn't be arrested (thank you captain obvious).
I wonder if a disclaimer to the effect that you must own a copy of said recordings to download them would hold up
grats on a retarded comment, unless you have the IQ of my pet cat you already know this whole story is about copyrighted music, not your stupid ubuntu torrent.
However at no time is the sharing of material, which has a copyright notice on it clearly denying you permission to share, legal.
try to think a little more next time.
.. I believe they are correct here - enabling someone else to commit a crime is a crime in itself. And like it or not, sharing copyrighted material IS a crime in the USA at this point in time.
he believes in a bible that was read out of a hat. nothing more to say.
there's no such thing as scientific FACT. Darwin first started out with a HYPOTHESIS, which he then tested and provided a proof for which was then examined by his peers till it progressed to the stage of being an accepted theory. the theory itself is very sound, but as new evidence comes to light the theory can be adjusted to improve it's accuracy. this is a concept you people just aren't able to grasp it seems.