Wireless VOIP may actually work better since the routes will be dedicated back to the provider server/tower and not shared with the rest of the network traffic like a typical LAN. From there it should have a pretty good link out.
That said I have no issues with my VOIP service though my router does have built-in QoS for it.
Remember - and admittedly, this was due in part to the timing of discoveries, but is true nonetheless - President Bush is the first president to allow federal funding of any kind to human embryonic stem cell research. Further, there were no "bans" on embryonic stem cell research: there was a restriction on federal funding of research that didn't use approved, preexisting lines.
This is true on its face, but there is some clarification needed. Clinton was the one who actually implemented all of the policy and prepared the government to fund stem cell research. Bush happened to be in office when it became a reality. If Bush had done absolutely nothing there would be unrestricted full federal funding of stem cell research under the Clinton administration policies. However, Bush issued an Executive Order and changed all of that. So, while Bush didn't 'ban' anything, he did take research a step backwards from where it would be now if he had left it alone.
On the contrary I think Rand's philosophy is about the only thing that could possibly save us at this point. Yes it is self-serving and egocentric most of the time, but if you want a society that values liberty over the illusion of safety then those are principles that must be adopted. As she says (and I paraphrase), you can't rule innocent men so you must create laws until every man becomes a criminal.
Sounds like you just have an overblown sense of glorious admiration for teenage miscreants.
If I knew a company I did business with was using some kid who breaks into other people's systems for fun to safeguard my personal data, I would quit doing business with said company. It's one thing to hire them as a contracted penetration tester, it's an entirely different thing to hire them full time to guard your sensitive data. Maybe you were referring to the former, in which case I can agree with you.
Legitimized extortion? I think the companies that would hire a criminal to secure their network and put full faith in him not to abuse the data he has access to are few, far between, and frankly a little nutty. It's just a publicity stunt when a company does this. There are a lot of very qualified white hat experts with a long resume of experience and referrals that are a lot more trustworthy and probably more knowledgeable than the kid from Finland who used his l33t skillz to run his script from IRC against your server.
Been watching Fahrenheit 9/11 huh? What do all the tinfoil hatters expect the president to have done? Start panicking in front of a bunch of children?
Anyways the CIA and the FBI were not sharing information before 9/11 and that's a real problem when the government is not talking to the government. Most of the Patriot Act has nothing to do with citizens' privacy issues, and is not evil terrible Big Brother stuff. There is some bad stuff in there and that's the only thing that gets attention. That's what needs to be striken, IMO. I don't think the whole thing is a total loss.
Other than the controversial issues that are the only parts people focus on, it modified pretty archaic sections of the statutes that were written before PCs, the Internet, etc were widespread. Also the idea of increased intelligence sharing is important, since we've learned that perhaps that could have prevented 9/11 in the first place.
States' rights means not allowing the federal government to pass laws that exceed its authority. The recent Gonzales v. Raich is a great example. The black-robed tyrants have told us that 'interstate commerce' includes home-grown marijuana for personal use which will not be sold and is done so under the laws of California with a doctor's prescription. Now, 'interstate commerce' is almost always the excuse the federal government uses to justify about any law they want, including our federal drug laws. SCOTUS didn't have the balls to do its job and stand up for the Constitution because it would overturn so much of the DEA's power. States rights is what the Constitution used to have a lot of interest in, but the SCOTUS has slowly erased the 10th amendment from relevance.
I don't agree with certain portions of the Patriot Act, to be sure, but it's all too easy for you to claim the Patriot Act does nothing to stop terrorism when we haven't had a single terrorist attack since 9/11 while other countries have. That may or may not be because of the Patriot Act, but you cannot say for certain that it is not working.
It's not that his monitor will be junk, it's that his monitor cannot play protected content like HD-DVD because it requires a monitor with DRM capabilities. An old monitor will do you no good in viewing this content, for everything else it will be fine.
Of course this assumes consumers have a choice about whether their monitor has this DRM. It may end up being like trying to find a DVD that doesn't have Macrovision capabilities.
No this is Slashdot and anything that MS does can not be trusted even if Apple does the same thing.
Apple has little control over whether to comply with this. It will be up to market forces and the monitor manufacturers. If they all start putting this tech in their hardware, which the article indicates is likely, Apple will have little choice but to comply. You bring up DVDs but the very fact that a DVD plays on OS X means Apple agreed to implement the proper content control in their OS to decrypt the disc.
Contrast that with Linux which never got DVD playback "legitimately". It had to be cracked.
It's doubtful OSX will not comply with this. It is a standard that is already built into TVs but was never really implemented in computer monitors. It will be included with HDDVD and probably Blu Ray. It is also being done by the manufacturers of the hardware and Microsoft is just implementing software to work with it. You really expect the creators of AAC to just say 'Hey we don't like content protection?'
As far as Linux, expect that it won't work at all unless someone can manage to find a crack to unprotect content.
You're right, he works for the Democrats AND al Jazeera:
"On February 18th, 2005 Scott Ritter announced to an audience in Washington State that George Bush had ordered plans drawn up to bomb Iran in June of 2005, and that the Iraq elections had been rigged by the United States. [4] He reiterated and clarified his statements about Iran in a March 30 article published by Al Jazeera. [5] Ritter also alleged that the United States had rigged the 2005 parliamentary election to prevent the United Iraqi Alliance from winning an outright majority."
Oh what's this, a sex criminal too? I rest my case.
* Weapons of mass destruction inspections? What do you know, they were right!
Were they? What did UNSCOM's Scott Ritter have to say before Bush and before the invasion?
To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It's
not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be
diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren't
working, Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they're going to keep
these weapons and they're going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner
than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no
unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created
under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone
aspects of its sovereignty, Iraq presents a clear and present danger to
international peace and security. Iraq must disarm in order to stop
presenting this capability and if they don't disarm they can be compelled.
This means the Security Council has the authorisation to either act as a
council and do military action or have a member nation on its own
undertake military action. The United States is the country behind all of
this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we
pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to
disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to
carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being
pointed at the heads of inspectors.
The US pushed it. We're in this position because the US wanted Iraq
disarmed. Iraq is not being disarmed right now. It's up to the United
States to compel Iraq. Sanctions aren't working. They're not going to
work. There's only one person to blame for all of this and it's Saddam
Hussein. He has to be held accountable. I think the answer is quite
obvious what has to happen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
it out. I don't have to say it.
Let's see, assuming these people did it, what they have to say about it:
"rejoice for it is time to take revenge from the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London"
"Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters. We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people."
Yes let's please reason with these people, they obviously have their heads on right about the British Zionist Crusade...
Perhaps we could meet with the al Qaeda embassy and discuss a possible treaty against the evil Zionist Crusade?
Slashdot Mirror
The article doesn't even say anything about that at all. The submitter is responsible for the editorial there.
Wireless VOIP may actually work better since the routes will be dedicated back to the provider server/tower and not shared with the rest of the network traffic like a typical LAN. From there it should have a pretty good link out.
That said I have no issues with my VOIP service though my router does have built-in QoS for it.
This is true on its face, but there is some clarification needed. Clinton was the one who actually implemented all of the policy and prepared the government to fund stem cell research. Bush happened to be in office when it became a reality. If Bush had done absolutely nothing there would be unrestricted full federal funding of stem cell research under the Clinton administration policies. However, Bush issued an Executive Order and changed all of that. So, while Bush didn't 'ban' anything, he did take research a step backwards from where it would be now if he had left it alone.
I know. Somehow... I've always known.
On the contrary I think Rand's philosophy is about the only thing that could possibly save us at this point. Yes it is self-serving and egocentric most of the time, but if you want a society that values liberty over the illusion of safety then those are principles that must be adopted. As she says (and I paraphrase), you can't rule innocent men so you must create laws until every man becomes a criminal.
If I knew a company I did business with was using some kid who breaks into other people's systems for fun to safeguard my personal data, I would quit doing business with said company. It's one thing to hire them as a contracted penetration tester, it's an entirely different thing to hire them full time to guard your sensitive data. Maybe you were referring to the former, in which case I can agree with you.
In Soviet Russia, spam assasinates YOU.
Legitimized extortion? I think the companies that would hire a criminal to secure their network and put full faith in him not to abuse the data he has access to are few, far between, and frankly a little nutty. It's just a publicity stunt when a company does this. There are a lot of very qualified white hat experts with a long resume of experience and referrals that are a lot more trustworthy and probably more knowledgeable than the kid from Finland who used his l33t skillz to run his script from IRC against your server.
Anyways the CIA and the FBI were not sharing information before 9/11 and that's a real problem when the government is not talking to the government. Most of the Patriot Act has nothing to do with citizens' privacy issues, and is not evil terrible Big Brother stuff. There is some bad stuff in there and that's the only thing that gets attention. That's what needs to be striken, IMO. I don't think the whole thing is a total loss.
Other than the controversial issues that are the only parts people focus on, it modified pretty archaic sections of the statutes that were written before PCs, the Internet, etc were widespread. Also the idea of increased intelligence sharing is important, since we've learned that perhaps that could have prevented 9/11 in the first place.
States' rights means not allowing the federal government to pass laws that exceed its authority. The recent Gonzales v. Raich is a great example. The black-robed tyrants have told us that 'interstate commerce' includes home-grown marijuana for personal use which will not be sold and is done so under the laws of California with a doctor's prescription. Now, 'interstate commerce' is almost always the excuse the federal government uses to justify about any law they want, including our federal drug laws. SCOTUS didn't have the balls to do its job and stand up for the Constitution because it would overturn so much of the DEA's power. States rights is what the Constitution used to have a lot of interest in, but the SCOTUS has slowly erased the 10th amendment from relevance.
I don't agree with certain portions of the Patriot Act, to be sure, but it's all too easy for you to claim the Patriot Act does nothing to stop terrorism when we haven't had a single terrorist attack since 9/11 while other countries have. That may or may not be because of the Patriot Act, but you cannot say for certain that it is not working.
I take off my robe and wizard hat...
Still mad that you didn't invest in Google, huh?
Google was also remarkably close to the idea behind lots of early search engines but it ended up giving them the smackdown on market share.
It's not that his monitor will be junk, it's that his monitor cannot play protected content like HD-DVD because it requires a monitor with DRM capabilities. An old monitor will do you no good in viewing this content, for everything else it will be fine.
Of course this assumes consumers have a choice about whether their monitor has this DRM. It may end up being like trying to find a DVD that doesn't have Macrovision capabilities.
Apple has little control over whether to comply with this. It will be up to market forces and the monitor manufacturers. If they all start putting this tech in their hardware, which the article indicates is likely, Apple will have little choice but to comply. You bring up DVDs but the very fact that a DVD plays on OS X means Apple agreed to implement the proper content control in their OS to decrypt the disc.
Contrast that with Linux which never got DVD playback "legitimately". It had to be cracked.
And I'm not selling FUD, try to RTFA and you will get what's going on here.
It's not a Microsoft product, it's an industry standard which is essentially the new wave of Macrovision.
As far as Linux, expect that it won't work at all unless someone can manage to find a crack to unprotect content.
* You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
* The womp rats are about 2 meters in length.
* The sand is coarse and rough and irritating, and gets everywhere.
"On February 18th, 2005 Scott Ritter announced to an audience in Washington State that George Bush had ordered plans drawn up to bomb Iran in June of 2005, and that the Iraq elections had been rigged by the United States. [4] He reiterated and clarified his statements about Iran in a March 30 article published by Al Jazeera. [5] Ritter also alleged that the United States had rigged the 2005 parliamentary election to prevent the United Iraqi Alliance from winning an outright majority."
Oh what's this, a sex criminal too? I rest my case.
Were they? What did UNSCOM's Scott Ritter have to say before Bush and before the invasion?
To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It's not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren't working, Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they're going to keep these weapons and they're going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone aspects of its sovereignty, Iraq presents a clear and present danger to international peace and security. Iraq must disarm in order to stop presenting this capability and if they don't disarm they can be compelled. This means the Security Council has the authorisation to either act as a council and do military action or have a member nation on its own undertake military action. The United States is the country behind all of this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being pointed at the heads of inspectors. The US pushed it. We're in this position because the US wanted Iraq disarmed. Iraq is not being disarmed right now. It's up to the United States to compel Iraq. Sanctions aren't working. They're not going to work. There's only one person to blame for all of this and it's Saddam Hussein. He has to be held accountable. I think the answer is quite obvious what has to happen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I don't have to say it.
"rejoice for it is time to take revenge from the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London"
"Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters. We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people."
Yes let's please reason with these people, they obviously have their heads on right about the British Zionist Crusade... Perhaps we could meet with the al Qaeda embassy and discuss a possible treaty against the evil Zionist Crusade?