You don't really even need to be discreet to get a lot of personal information. Look at Facebook. People are willing to do the work FOR you, populating data sets.
The reason you don't have to worry about invading anyone's privacy is that like Scott Adams says: People like to talk more than they like to listen. And that's why the government conspiracists always make me laugh. They think that the government will one day track everything you do by force, when in reality, private corporations have already been freely given a vast amount of information simply out of convenience
So if it's really about helping artists not get screwed over, maybe target record companies instead of increasing copyright.
Record companies are somehow able to sell a million records and still have the artists owe THEM money after all that. That's a much more real problem than lost sales.
I thought that would be a good idea, but it would really alienate the fanbase, espescially since it reeks of mafioso tactics, since Sony could artificially retrict the supply to create a higher price.
I think the best solution would be one like the Gamespot solution of reserving Xbox 360s for extremely expensive (and profitable) bundles. You could filter the people without money, and still provide value other than just the value of having one of the limited amount of consoles.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the United States.
DHS has been getting manifests for all flights into the country (a smart move that actually is pretty effective), it just seems like they are expanding the program (to other transport methods and now, people leavkng the country) so that they know who is coming and going in the country. YOU don't have to get clearance....the airline/boat/bus has to get clearance, so for all practical purposes, international travel will not change for Americans (unless you are that small percentage that always ends up getting "randomly" screened)
They can claim all they want, but it's useless if they don't have the means to defend their territory.
So the US can own the Moon, Mars, etc if it feels like making the claim (and defending it)
You can set iTunes to shuffle by Artist, Album, or Song.
The problem with older versions was this wasn't wall documented (the preference was hard to find), and was set to shuffle by album by default. I know because I noticed the same thing, but eventually found out what I was doing wrong (the option was something like "Group songs by album for shuffle" or something like that)
1) Exit polling is not affected by demographics, only by those who vote.
It's for damn sure affected by sample selection, and that's what it is an issue of
2) Christians are not all anti-gay and Republican.
Of course they aren't, but the ones who felt strongly about the issue were motivated to go out and vote, and possibly ignore other ancillary issues (such as the Iraq War) in order to vote about an issue important to them (aka "He fucked up, but at least he is opposed to the gays"). The people who were strongly in favor of gay marraige had a similar motivation.
3) Gays had the right to vote then and have the right to vote now.
That didn't seem to get them the right to vote (see: Shortcomings of Democracy, pg. 135)
One of the major problems with exit polling in the 2004 election was that there was a radically different turnout in terms of demographics compared to the 2000 elections. The big group that was motivated to vote was the Christians who were damn sure not to let gays get the right to vote.
In fact, it was pretty damn lucky for the republicans to get an issue to motivate a large group of voters to show up that soon before an election.
Actually, a few weeks back, Slashdot covered how Maryland Governor Ehrlich (R) was trying to seek an injunction on the use of Diebold machines.
The reality of the situation is that it's not a Democrat/Republican thing.....it's a power thing. If a Democrat were in office, the Republicans would be shouting vote fraud, etc.
You are right, using electronic voting invites fraud, but allowing people to vote without showing ID is just being fair to underpriveleged people (who can get a state ID for free under hardship condtions)
How can you claim to be serious about vote fraud without be in favor of requiring ID to vote?
And it's not disenfranchisement either. You need ID as a prerequisite to get a job, cash checks (and even if you are poor, welfare checks, other government assistance), open a bank account, etc. I don't know how anybody could not have an ID unless it was a matter of purposefully not wanting one. I mean, when you are born, you get a birth certificate (which I believe is enough to prove ID under the proposed law)
Actually i think in 2000, we (Maryland) had problems with Democrats picking up retarded people and bussing them around to multiple polling sites.
I only remember hearing snippets in the news about it though at the time
Honestly, that is the reason that I always laugh when some leftist/righty tells me that the government controls the media. They are close, but what really controls the media is profit.
The media isn't supposed to inform you. They are there to make a profit. Period. Journalistic standards are mainly just there so that you take them seriously enough to keep reading
You know what does? People railing against one socio-political-economic class as the root problem of society.
So wait, are we talking about Slashdot who blames the ignorant masses and "idiot bible thumping republicans"?
I've always been partial to libertarianism because as much as liberals bitch about republicans being intolerant, liberals are also very intolerant of people who don't behave/act like they do. For example, anti-smoking laws, hate speech laws, and they seem to have a bias against people they don't deem to be as smart as them (comments about "dumb americans"), and thus seem to be designing some elitist utopian society
This "golden age of freedom" you reference never existed. Every president for the past 50 years has took away precious rights.
Clinton had a habit of pandering with the ever-so-popular "think of the children" in order to pass gun legislation in the wake of Columbine.
Even in the 1970's, Jimmy Carter first authorized the wiretapping many pan Bush (not to mention the countless other presidents who have used it) for employing.
Face it, the interests of those in power is to gain more power. It's not a left vs right thing.
At my university, the campus DC++ hub is protected by the simple fact that the network is run by a mixture of paid staff, and students, with the students having a lot of power/influence.
If the RIAA ever attempts to crack down on the hub, the people who work at Resnet will take action (they run the DC++ hub) to protect their assets, and potentially cockblock the RIAA at every step of the way
Slashdot Mirror
You don't really even need to be discreet to get a lot of personal information. Look at Facebook. People are willing to do the work FOR you, populating data sets.
The reason you don't have to worry about invading anyone's privacy is that like Scott Adams says: People like to talk more than they like to listen. And that's why the government conspiracists always make me laugh. They think that the government will one day track everything you do by force, when in reality, private corporations have already been freely given a vast amount of information simply out of convenience
There is no law (and in my opinion, should be no law) determining what companies are allowed to do with information you freely give them.
If that scares you, simply don't give away your information.
So if it's really about helping artists not get screwed over, maybe target record companies instead of increasing copyright.
Record companies are somehow able to sell a million records and still have the artists owe THEM money after all that. That's a much more real problem than lost sales.
If they live in the dwelling with you, they are allowed to specify sex
I thought that would be a good idea, but it would really alienate the fanbase, espescially since it reeks of mafioso tactics, since Sony could artificially retrict the supply to create a higher price.
I think the best solution would be one like the Gamespot solution of reserving Xbox 360s for extremely expensive (and profitable) bundles. You could filter the people without money, and still provide value other than just the value of having one of the limited amount of consoles.
If you read the article:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all
airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain
clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the
United States.
DHS has been getting manifests for all flights into the country (a smart move that actually is pretty effective), it just seems like they are expanding the program (to other transport methods and now, people leavkng the country) so that they know who is coming and going in the country. YOU don't have to get clearance....the airline/boat/bus has to get clearance, so for all practical purposes, international travel will not change for Americans (unless you are that small percentage that always ends up getting "randomly" screened)
No, see, he wants OTHER people to do it. Just like he buys Co2 offsets. He pays other people not to pollute in lieu of not polluting himself.
It's great to attach your name to grand causes, whilst only taking token actions in helping it.
It's obviously best to simply give up and leave, rather than actually stand up and do something about changing your country.
They can claim all they want, but it's useless if they don't have the means to defend their territory. So the US can own the Moon, Mars, etc if it feels like making the claim (and defending it)
You can set iTunes to shuffle by Artist, Album, or Song.
The problem with older versions was this wasn't wall documented (the preference was hard to find), and was set to shuffle by album by default. I know because I noticed the same thing, but eventually found out what I was doing wrong (the option was something like "Group songs by album for shuffle" or something like that)
1) Exit polling is not affected by demographics, only by those who vote.
It's for damn sure affected by sample selection, and that's what it is an issue of
2) Christians are not all anti-gay and Republican.
Of course they aren't, but the ones who felt strongly about the issue were motivated to go out and vote, and possibly ignore other ancillary issues (such as the Iraq War) in order to vote about an issue important to them (aka "He fucked up, but at least he is opposed to the gays"). The people who were strongly in favor of gay marraige had a similar motivation.
3) Gays had the right to vote then and have the right to vote now.
That didn't seem to get them the right to vote (see: Shortcomings of Democracy, pg. 135)
One of the major problems with exit polling in the 2004 election was that there was a radically different turnout in terms of demographics compared to the 2000 elections. The big group that was motivated to vote was the Christians who were damn sure not to let gays get the right to vote.
In fact, it was pretty damn lucky for the republicans to get an issue to motivate a large group of voters to show up that soon before an election.
Actually, a few weeks back, Slashdot covered how Maryland Governor Ehrlich (R) was trying to seek an injunction on the use of Diebold machines.
The reality of the situation is that it's not a Democrat/Republican thing.....it's a power thing. If a Democrat were in office, the Republicans would be shouting vote fraud, etc.
You are right, using electronic voting invites fraud, but allowing people to vote without showing ID is just being fair to underpriveleged people (who can get a state ID for free under hardship condtions)
How can you claim to be serious about vote fraud without be in favor of requiring ID to vote?
And it's not disenfranchisement either. You need ID as a prerequisite to get a job, cash checks (and even if you are poor, welfare checks, other government assistance), open a bank account, etc. I don't know how anybody could not have an ID unless it was a matter of purposefully not wanting one. I mean, when you are born, you get a birth certificate (which I believe is enough to prove ID under the proposed law)
Actually i think in 2000, we (Maryland) had problems with Democrats picking up retarded people and bussing them around to multiple polling sites. I only remember hearing snippets in the news about it though at the time
My first guess would be to look at accessing software update from the command line, which would mean that it could be scripted.
Just do "man softwareupdate" and check it out
Honestly, that is the reason that I always laugh when some leftist/righty tells me that the government controls the media. They are close, but what really controls the media is profit.
The media isn't supposed to inform you. They are there to make a profit. Period. Journalistic standards are mainly just there so that you take them seriously enough to keep reading
So he pollutes, but it's ok because he pays other people not to pollute for him?
This sounds like the Catholic Church selling indulgences
Viewing distance is much farther away for shuttle launches vs other launches from what I understand
And I presume they let press closer because they sign some sort of "hold harmless" contract
90 Hours a Week and Loving It!
Then they sent in the *HUMANS* who within seconds discovered a soda can that obviously did not belong in the simulated environment.
Are the mods skimming today?
You know what does? People railing against one socio-political-economic class as the root problem of society.
So wait, are we talking about Slashdot who blames the ignorant masses and "idiot bible thumping republicans"?
I've always been partial to libertarianism because as much as liberals bitch about republicans being intolerant, liberals are also very intolerant of people who don't behave/act like they do. For example, anti-smoking laws, hate speech laws, and they seem to have a bias against people they don't deem to be as smart as them (comments about "dumb americans"), and thus seem to be designing some elitist utopian society
This "golden age of freedom" you reference never existed. Every president for the past 50 years has took away precious rights.
Clinton had a habit of pandering with the ever-so-popular "think of the children" in order to pass gun legislation in the wake of Columbine.
Even in the 1970's, Jimmy Carter first authorized the wiretapping many pan Bush (not to mention the countless other presidents who have used it) for employing.
Face it, the interests of those in power is to gain more power. It's not a left vs right thing.
Exactly.
At my university, the campus DC++ hub is protected by the simple fact that the network is run by a mixture of paid staff, and students, with the students having a lot of power/influence.
If the RIAA ever attempts to crack down on the hub, the people who work at Resnet will take action (they run the DC++ hub) to protect their assets, and potentially cockblock the RIAA at every step of the way