Re:Conservative/Liberal take on it
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> I think most people are taught that they can't improve themselves and therefore don't even try.
I agree with most of what you say.
I think my main beef was people always blaming the person for being taught that there was no use for trying to succeed. For me, thats something to empathize about, to try and help them out of. It's not a good reason in and of itself as for why we shouldn't care for their wellbeing. However, you seem to recognize this; I just suspect that many dont.
Re:Conservative/Liberal take on it
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Provably false. People get hit by trains because they're on the railroad tracks when the train goes by. This has nothing to do with luck, or circumstance. It has to do with bad decision making. Nobody's car ever "stalls out" on the tracks like in the movies. People try to "beat the train"... and fail.
Way to predictably react to my statement in a way that only serves to re-inforce my point: Your perception is your truth. Check the replies, and you'll note lots of cars stall on tracks. Or get stuck on tracks through no fault of the driver.
You simply choose to err on the side of discrediting your fellow man.. do you really think you're going to see "Mans car stalls on tracks. Man gets out of car. Man survives!" in the paper? You only hear about the times when Man bites Dog, not Dog bites Man, even though Dog bites Man is way more common. Its a junk food news society, baby, and the last thing you want to read about in the paper is boring old reality. The benifit you get out of it is that you can skew your perception of reality any which old way you choose; but a wise and compassionate person always errs on the side of doubt rather than assumption.
Unfortunately, you missed the point about perception. Your situation is a minority. Many people *do* work just has hard, but arn't smart enough to learn networking (or hate computers).. or for whatever other reason, hard work just doesn't cut it for them.
You almost reinforced one of the major points the author had; the few bright spots outshine the many who don't succeed, but yet, their methods are held up as being the 'simple way' to escape a situation.
Which leaves us with:
1. Most people must be lazy, you were one of the few who could actually force yourself to do the work.
OR
2. You made it, with hard work and dumb luck. Most people don't get the dumb luck, regardless of how hard they work.
I assume you vote 1. I vote 2.
WHOA, dont let this spiral out of control
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Um, yes, that was a super reductionist post. Obviously, there are shades of grey, and even the most hardcore C or L doesn't look at things in a 100% absolute way that I've suggested.
They are just generalizations, and it's too bad that I'm gunna get modded down to hell for it.
I probably should have left off that last line. It's still a valid point, for the most part.
Conservative/Liberal take on it
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
> (for instance, the fact that you're not dead: is that really because you're so darn good, or does dumb luck play a part?)
Thats called the Just World mentality. Its not a Just World.. unfair things happen through dumb luck.
I've found this is the single biggest commenality in partiasian schools of thought:
Conservatives tend to think you are where you are because you deserved it. Dumb and lazy people are poor, smart and hard working people are rich. Dumb people get hit by trains, smart people comment on how dumb they are. Your situation is a result of your disposition.
Liberals go the other way. Luck, circumstance, and opportunity play huge roles in where you are. Poor people are poor because of luck and circumstance. People get hit by trains because they might have just plain been unlucky. Your situation is a result of your environment, including dumb luck.
Personally, this is the single biggest reason I can't stand conservatives. It bothers me to no end how capable they are of assuming that anybody in a bad situation is there because they deserve it.
I pity the potential contributor to society who spends his cycles trying to defend ones right to use a name which may cause confusion in a small market space.
You wanna rail against dirty corperate tactics, of which we both know there are many?
a) find a real dirty corperate tactic (shouldnt be too hard) b) spend your valuable time fighting it
But honest to god, dude, you are welcome to open a sofa store called Apple.. you just can't open a computer company called Apple. Thems the breaks. It actually helps people less knowledgable than you not get rooked or confused. Your anti corperate ire, which I tend to have lots of myself, could be far more usefully directed than getting all irate when somebody has a semi-legit case with trademark dilution.. I mean, they didnt even try and put Pheonix the browser out of 'business', they just wanted them to change their name.
No biggie, so chillax and fight the battles worth fighting.
Am I the only guy who gets pissed when mission critical systems are portrayed in movies as over-the-top guis that take for ever to do something.. and that the complete lack of sane interface design is used to build tension?
Its how you can almost bet that any car you need to make a getaway in, in a movie, is bound to need 3 minutes of engine turning to start...
Can we ditch that cliche already, hollywood? Both of them?
> except that usually small companies are much more adept at that than big ones
Hrm, you kinda sidestep the fact that true 100% capitalism's government has one function, and one function alone: protect your property. The government (ie, via the people that elect it) still has to decide *what* is property, and nothing keeps us as a society from defining ideas and information as property (despite the fact that I'd disagree with it.) You might read up on the hedge wars in fuedal times where land that was thought to be public was suddently, overnight, turned into property for the ruling class. Theres a perfect example that shows that your interpretation of what really is 'property' is subjective, and you're not doing your laissez-faire ideological camp any favours by glibly ignoring that issue in your post.
Anywho, in a free market, the big company just buys all the advertising 'bandwidth' out from the small company, so even if the small company is adept, they still go bankrupt because nobody ever hears about them.
Free markets just mean companies are free to abuse the limitations people have in choosing the right product on the market. It takes time to become educated as to ones choices, and even then, nobody can look into the future and know they are making the correct choice. Therefore, subjective advertising plays a huge role in what people buy.. second only to the influence that prior market adoption plays in the selection of a product in the majority of people's decisions. (Eg, what kind of car should I buy? Hrm, I know 40 people with brand A, so that should be a safe buy, even if I've heard that brand B is better and cheaper.)
At least state capitalism is run under some democratic attempt to compensate for the unfair limitations in a completetly free market... even if we don't see the attempt being pursued as fairly as we'd like to.
I've never understood people's burning desire for a completely free market.. you're just replacing your government with private interests, and your vote with your dollars. I don't think you can invent a system that would cater to the needs of the few at the cost of the many more easily.. I mean, look at what the UK went through in the 18th and 19th centuries..
I mean, imagine the health risks of a free market - what kind of company could make money selling you services/education/products that you'll only recognize 60 years down the road when you realize the benifit of the product in question? Absolutely nobody would be there to warn you that your daughters favorite candy increases her chances of getting heart problems 40 years down the road. Nobody would tell you that that paint you just put on your walls is going to give you cancer. Do you really want to be the person who demonstrates a products limitations in the marketplace by sacrificing your life so that others 'make the correct choice in the market'? Only government regulatory bodies, paid for by taxes, can possibly give a shit about your life in the distant future. Totally free markets rely on the sacrifice of human lives to demonstrate the viability of products in a market place, and you'd have to be pretty high up on your horse to contend that those that pay the price of fatal product failures in a free market deserved it.
Free markets are naturally in favour of the big guy (tho obviously regulation can work in their favour too), which is why its usually taught to be a good thing in business class. Regulation is 'unamerican' or whatnot, but I really wish people would see the unsexy, unrich ways it protects a population against the nearsighted drive for profit. The fact that free markets often damage the quality of life of those that participate in it is of little consequence to those pushing the layman/Econ101 school of economics.. our western economic system just naturally (and for obvious vested interests) wants to convince people people who push for less regulation in order to facilitate faster, risker capitalism where the winners can *really* win, the losers can *really* lose, and where we all accept without question that human life or health is simply the cost of generating wealth faster and with less governmental intervention.
Free markets is the economical equivilent of mob justice; sure, you get what you want quickly and with no intervention from the authorities (fair trial? who needs it?! the system is out of order, dontchaknow!), but by the time you realize that you've lynched humans, not witches, some people are already dead and the mobs moved on to another potentially sarrowful mistake.
Slow and steady wins the race; we're only human and we need to trust in each others' help to make the right decisions.
I refuse to believe a credit card company cannot hire programmers decent enough to build a transactional system capable of supporting real time verification, 24/7.
Maybe they should hire some dudes who work on online advertising servers.. high load, mandatory uptime. The 3rd party site should be able to connect to the credit card company with an API or library that is audited, so that 3rd parties could not possibly be storing PINs.
> Think of it this way, if I stole your ATM card, I couldn't empty out your checking acount without your PIN which, hopefully, only you know.
I'm pretty sure the machine knows it too (however briefly as it checks with the bank's servers)..
However, retail websites wouldnt have to store your PIN, just authorize you briefly. That makes discovering PINs from 3rd parties impossible. You'd have the crack the credit card company, and thats the most 'logical' party to trust with the data that you need to use the account.
I agree with the parent post.. a centrally secured PIN number repositority accountable to the company that issues the card would probably prevent alot of fraud.
The US resembles the late UK 19th century 'free market out of control' situation so badly (replete with your modern day Gilbert and Sullivans attempting to enforce unreasonable copyright laws on multinational soil) that people really have forgotten that 'content creators' dont have a say. Content buyers, content distributors, content publishers, have ALL the power.
Funny how every drastic social backlash seems to be preceded with a golden-age of middle-men. Just ask yourself when the last time you actually hearn an honest to god content creator speak his or her mind.. and no, any "content creator" that owns a record label (the P. Diddys or Missy Elliot) don't count since their interests are planeted firmly in the middle-man mindset. I garauntee you most artists and musicians would wanna slap ya upside the head for calling the Hollywood juggernaut content creators. They are publishers.
Read up on some copyright history and you'll see we played this game about 100 years ago when piano roll technology hit the market and the UK saw rampant 'piracy' in the US. Find out why publishers are consistantly mistaken for content creators over and over in the latter stages of each cycle in the history of copyright law.
Re:It looks like they're patenting database "filte
on
NCR Patents the Internet
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It doesn't matter.
America's #1 passtime is 'settling out of court'.. aka, self-censorship and the growing iirelevency of America's legal system.
Not only is lady justice blind, she's also sitting at home watching financial interests undermine her purpose. It's become cheaper to sell out to your sworn enemy than actually figure out who's on the correct side of the law.
Remember when you used to be able to telnet into your hosting account?
People didn't have or know too much about Telnet, so default services and configs of servers wern't too "locked down" out of the box.
Fast forward, and distros and OSes are becoming increasingly locked down out of the box. Nobody who will eventually make money as a web host is letting you connect to their servers with anything less than SSH.
What many people fail to realize is that an increase in the ease with which we can 'discover' possible points of entry and visibility of services (affected by both changes in technology and increased unbiquity of access clients) results in a hightened awareness of security and generally more secure out of the box configs.
The funniest part is how many insecure WAP networks are out there.. because users have to configure them manually, and we can't expect them to all get it right! So a zeroconf network is actually a good thing.. the details of what gets shared and open by default is left to computer security professionals instead of users who don't know any better or dont have the time/money to properly educate themselves as to how to secure a wireless network.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water here.. lets keep the bathwater! All we really need to do is keep aware of the design and out of the box configuration of the bathtub, and improve it as neccessary. Fortunately, even in MSes case, that is the trend. Ship or auto-configure in a conservative state, and try and limit the amount of times it becomes neccessary for people who may not be experts to tinker. (And before you jump on me, yes, it should be simple and easy for an expert to override zeroconf situations.)
Good theory, except the article states nothing about these boards having been overclocked - a detail that at least the quotes from the tech repair guy would have included had it been pertinant to the problem.
I'm just wondering why people speculate without evidence? Its like people arn't happy with a story until they added their own little insubstantiated (possible, but insubstantiated) twist. I'm all for listening, but why post a "what if" without any proof beyond that it'd be possible?
If capacitors are exploding (see the pics, they are), across multiple motherboard vendors, all of whom are desigend differently, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the trend here.
The capacitors are exploding. Vendor-independantly. Maybe you can provide some proof that cheaper and chaper processes are leading to the same capacitors exploding in many brands of motherboards.. or actually take *gasp* some news at face value instead of dreaming there's some secret "blame it on the guys' whos capacitors are exploding" consiracy.
Anyhow, the Mobo manufacturers were loathe to admit the capacitors were exploding. If it really *was* their shoddy workmanship causing faulty boards, they've hae JUMPED at the opportunity to blame it on some untracable capacitor. But the article makes it very clear that manufacturers are reluctant to say anything, making it clear to me that the common element in all these exploding capacitor situations is... gasp, the capacitor! Not much of one to beleive in Occoms Razor, huh?
>But I know when Canadians buy from the US they pay some rediculous ass ramming tax.
It's called 'duty'. Its meant to discourage the very mentality posed by the parent poster; namely that shopping outside of your economy is bad for your economy.
The US likely has import duties as well, but you would have to check with your customs agency in order to confirm whether duty applies to the specific products you are interested in importing.
Privacy once you go out of your home? Sorry, but when you step out of your home, you start infringing others rights.. so why do you think you have an inherent right to yours?
So long as your collected data doesn't turn into exactly 3:44 minutes of silence (the guys name was John Cage), you're fine.
Anyhow, as someone else pointed out, if you can generate the data via ramdomness, you're fine because you never actually copied the original song. You produced it independantly.
Slashdot Mirror
This is like the computer nerd equivilent to "College Girls Gone Wild". Anything for a buck.
Except instead of making me want to spank myself, I want to spank them.
Thats very cool. Thank you for posting that.
> I think most people are taught that they can't improve themselves and therefore don't even try.
I agree with most of what you say.
I think my main beef was people always blaming the person for being taught that there was no use for trying to succeed. For me, thats something to empathize about, to try and help them out of. It's not a good reason in and of itself as for why we shouldn't care for their wellbeing. However, you seem to recognize this; I just suspect that many dont.
> Provably false. People get hit by trains because they're on the railroad tracks when the train goes by. This has nothing to do with luck, or circumstance. It has to do with bad decision making. Nobody's car ever "stalls out" on the tracks like in the movies. People try to "beat the train"... and fail.
.. do you really think you're going to see "Mans car stalls on tracks. Man gets out of car. Man survives!" in the paper? You only hear about the times when Man bites Dog, not Dog bites Man, even though Dog bites Man is way more common. Its a junk food news society, baby, and the last thing you want to read about in the paper is boring old reality. The benifit you get out of it is that you can skew your perception of reality any which old way you choose; but a wise and compassionate person always errs on the side of doubt rather than assumption.
Way to predictably react to my statement in a way that only serves to re-inforce my point: Your perception is your truth. Check the replies, and you'll note lots of cars stall on tracks. Or get stuck on tracks through no fault of the driver.
You simply choose to err on the side of discrediting your fellow man
Unfortunately, you missed the point about perception. Your situation is a minority. Many people *do* work just has hard, but arn't smart enough to learn networking (or hate computers) .. or for whatever other reason, hard work just doesn't cut it for them.
You almost reinforced one of the major points the author had; the few bright spots outshine the many who don't succeed, but yet, their methods are held up as being the 'simple way' to escape a situation.
Which leaves us with:
1. Most people must be lazy, you were one of the few who could actually force yourself to do the work.
OR
2. You made it, with hard work and dumb luck. Most people don't get the dumb luck, regardless of how hard they work.
I assume you vote 1. I vote 2.
Um, yes, that was a super reductionist post. Obviously, there are shades of grey, and even the most hardcore C or L doesn't look at things in a 100% absolute way that I've suggested.
They are just generalizations, and it's too bad that I'm gunna get modded down to hell for it.
I probably should have left off that last line. It's still a valid point, for the most part.
> (for instance, the fact that you're not dead: is that really because you're so darn good, or does dumb luck play a part?)
.. unfair things happen through dumb luck.
Thats called the Just World mentality. Its not a Just World
I've found this is the single biggest commenality in partiasian schools of thought:
Conservatives tend to think you are where you are because you deserved it. Dumb and lazy people are poor, smart and hard working people are rich. Dumb people get hit by trains, smart people comment on how dumb they are. Your situation is a result of your disposition.
Liberals go the other way. Luck, circumstance, and opportunity play huge roles in where you are. Poor people are poor because of luck and circumstance. People get hit by trains because they might have just plain been unlucky. Your situation is a result of your environment, including dumb luck.
Personally, this is the single biggest reason I can't stand conservatives. It bothers me to no end how capable they are of assuming that anybody in a bad situation is there because they deserve it.
You should try fundamentalism .. that way you never have to deal with differing opinions.
Wanna lolly?
www.goo ... i dunno, I think goo .. altavista and google.c .. er, Inktomi are going to have a rough ride.
I pity the potential contributor to society who spends his cycles trying to defend ones right to use a name which may cause confusion in a small market space.
.. you just can't open a computer company called Apple. Thems the breaks. It actually helps people less knowledgable than you not get rooked or confused. Your anti corperate ire, which I tend to have lots of myself, could be far more usefully directed than getting all irate when somebody has a semi-legit case with trademark dilution .. I mean, they didnt even try and put Pheonix the browser out of 'business', they just wanted them to change their name.
You wanna rail against dirty corperate tactics, of which we both know there are many?
a) find a real dirty corperate tactic (shouldnt be too hard)
b) spend your valuable time fighting it
But honest to god, dude, you are welcome to open a sofa store called Apple
No biggie, so chillax and fight the battles worth fighting.
Am I the only guy who gets pissed when mission critical systems are portrayed in movies as over-the-top guis that take for ever to do something .. and that the complete lack of sane interface design is used to build tension?
...
Its how you can almost bet that any car you need to make a getaway in, in a movie, is bound to need 3 minutes of engine turning to start
Can we ditch that cliche already, hollywood? Both of them?
> except that usually small companies are much more adept at that than big ones
.. second only to the influence that prior market adoption plays in the selection of a product in the majority of people's decisions. (Eg, what kind of car should I buy? Hrm, I know 40 people with brand A, so that should be a safe buy, even if I've heard that brand B is better and cheaper.)
... even if we don't see the attempt being pursued as fairly as we'd like to.
.. you're just replacing your government with private interests, and your vote with your dollars. I don't think you can invent a system that would cater to the needs of the few at the cost of the many more easily .. I mean, look at what the UK went through in the 18th and 19th centuries ..
.. our western economic system just naturally (and for obvious vested interests) wants to convince people people who push for less regulation in order to facilitate faster, risker capitalism where the winners can *really* win, the losers can *really* lose, and where we all accept without question that human life or health is simply the cost of generating wealth faster and with less governmental intervention.
Hrm, you kinda sidestep the fact that true 100% capitalism's government has one function, and one function alone: protect your property. The government (ie, via the people that elect it) still has to decide *what* is property, and nothing keeps us as a society from defining ideas and information as property (despite the fact that I'd disagree with it.) You might read up on the hedge wars in fuedal times where land that was thought to be public was suddently, overnight, turned into property for the ruling class. Theres a perfect example that shows that your interpretation of what really is 'property' is subjective, and you're not doing your laissez-faire ideological camp any favours by glibly ignoring that issue in your post.
Anywho, in a free market, the big company just buys all the advertising 'bandwidth' out from the small company, so even if the small company is adept, they still go bankrupt because nobody ever hears about them.
Free markets just mean companies are free to abuse the limitations people have in choosing the right product on the market. It takes time to become educated as to ones choices, and even then, nobody can look into the future and know they are making the correct choice. Therefore, subjective advertising plays a huge role in what people buy
At least state capitalism is run under some democratic attempt to compensate for the unfair limitations in a completetly free market
I've never understood people's burning desire for a completely free market
I mean, imagine the health risks of a free market - what kind of company could make money selling you services/education/products that you'll only recognize 60 years down the road when you realize the benifit of the product in question? Absolutely nobody would be there to warn you that your daughters favorite candy increases her chances of getting heart problems 40 years down the road. Nobody would tell you that that paint you just put on your walls is going to give you cancer. Do you really want to be the person who demonstrates a products limitations in the marketplace by sacrificing your life so that others 'make the correct choice in the market'? Only government regulatory bodies, paid for by taxes, can possibly give a shit about your life in the distant future. Totally free markets rely on the sacrifice of human lives to demonstrate the viability of products in a market place, and you'd have to be pretty high up on your horse to contend that those that pay the price of fatal product failures in a free market deserved it.
Free markets are naturally in favour of the big guy (tho obviously regulation can work in their favour too), which is why its usually taught to be a good thing in business class. Regulation is 'unamerican' or whatnot, but I really wish people would see the unsexy, unrich ways it protects a population against the nearsighted drive for profit. The fact that free markets often damage the quality of life of those that participate in it is of little consequence to those pushing the layman/Econ101 school of economics
Free markets is the economical equivilent of mob justice; sure, you get what you want quickly and with no intervention from the authorities (fair trial? who needs it?! the system is out of order, dontchaknow!), but by the time you realize that you've lynched humans, not witches, some people are already dead and the mobs moved on to another potentially sarrowful mistake.
Slow and steady wins the race; we're only human and we need to trust in each others' help to make the right decisions.
I refuse to believe a credit card company cannot hire programmers decent enough to build a transactional system capable of supporting real time verification, 24/7.
.. high load, mandatory uptime. The 3rd party site should be able to connect to the credit card company with an API or library that is audited, so that 3rd parties could not possibly be storing PINs.
Maybe they should hire some dudes who work on online advertising servers
> Think of it this way, if I stole your ATM card, I couldn't empty out your checking acount without your PIN which, hopefully, only you know.
..
.. a centrally secured PIN number repositority accountable to the company that issues the card would probably prevent alot of fraud.
I'm pretty sure the machine knows it too (however briefly as it checks with the bank's servers)
However, retail websites wouldnt have to store your PIN, just authorize you briefly. That makes discovering PINs from 3rd parties impossible. You'd have the crack the credit card company, and thats the most 'logical' party to trust with the data that you need to use the account.
I agree with the parent post
The US resembles the late UK 19th century 'free market out of control' situation so badly (replete with your modern day Gilbert and Sullivans attempting to enforce unreasonable copyright laws on multinational soil) that people really have forgotten that 'content creators' dont have a say. Content buyers, content distributors, content publishers, have ALL the power.
.. and no, any "content creator" that owns a record label (the P. Diddys or Missy Elliot) don't count since their interests are planeted firmly in the middle-man mindset. I garauntee you most artists and musicians would wanna slap ya upside the head for calling the Hollywood juggernaut content creators. They are publishers.
Funny how every drastic social backlash seems to be preceded with a golden-age of middle-men. Just ask yourself when the last time you actually hearn an honest to god content creator speak his or her mind
Read up on some copyright history and you'll see we played this game about 100 years ago when piano roll technology hit the market and the UK saw rampant 'piracy' in the US. Find out why publishers are consistantly mistaken for content creators over and over in the latter stages of each cycle in the history of copyright law.
It doesn't matter.
.. aka, self-censorship and the growing iirelevency of America's legal system.
America's #1 passtime is 'settling out of court'
Not only is lady justice blind, she's also sitting at home watching financial interests undermine her purpose. It's become cheaper to sell out to your sworn enemy than actually figure out who's on the correct side of the law.
Remember when you used to be able to telnet into your hosting account?
.. because users have to configure them manually, and we can't expect them to all get it right! So a zeroconf network is actually a good thing .. the details of what gets shared and open by default is left to computer security professionals instead of users who don't know any better or dont have the time/money to properly educate themselves as to how to secure a wireless network.
.. lets keep the bathwater! All we really need to do is keep aware of the design and out of the box configuration of the bathtub, and improve it as neccessary. Fortunately, even in MSes case, that is the trend. Ship or auto-configure in a conservative state, and try and limit the amount of times it becomes neccessary for people who may not be experts to tinker. (And before you jump on me, yes, it should be simple and easy for an expert to override zeroconf situations.)
People didn't have or know too much about Telnet, so default services and configs of servers wern't too "locked down" out of the box.
Fast forward, and distros and OSes are becoming increasingly locked down out of the box. Nobody who will eventually make money as a web host is letting you connect to their servers with anything less than SSH.
What many people fail to realize is that an increase in the ease with which we can 'discover' possible points of entry and visibility of services (affected by both changes in technology and increased unbiquity of access clients) results in a hightened awareness of security and generally more secure out of the box configs.
The funniest part is how many insecure WAP networks are out there
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water here
If you *Really* wanted to support your claim that you can't do anything meaniful with a Mac, you'd have noted that you posted your comment from one.
Good theory, except the article states nothing about these boards having been overclocked - a detail that at least the quotes from the tech repair guy would have included had it been pertinant to the problem.
I'm just wondering why people speculate without evidence? Its like people arn't happy with a story until they added their own little insubstantiated (possible, but insubstantiated) twist. I'm all for listening, but why post a "what if" without any proof beyond that it'd be possible?
Buddy,
.. or actually take *gasp* some news at face value instead of dreaming there's some secret "blame it on the guys' whos capacitors are exploding" consiracy.
... gasp, the capacitor! Not much of one to beleive in Occoms Razor, huh?
If capacitors are exploding (see the pics, they are), across multiple motherboard vendors, all of whom are desigend differently, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the trend here.
The capacitors are exploding. Vendor-independantly. Maybe you can provide some proof that cheaper and chaper processes are leading to the same capacitors exploding in many brands of motherboards
Anyhow, the Mobo manufacturers were loathe to admit the capacitors were exploding. If it really *was* their shoddy workmanship causing faulty boards, they've hae JUMPED at the opportunity to blame it on some untracable capacitor. But the article makes it very clear that manufacturers are reluctant to say anything, making it clear to me that the common element in all these exploding capacitor situations is
The government is slow because its big. Not because its stupid.
.. the telephone! This is a good move, why give it a backhanded compliment?
It takes a long time to wait before technologies mature and stabilize before anybody would waste my tax money on enforcing it.
Look at the car
>But I know when Canadians buy from the US they pay some rediculous ass ramming tax.
It's called 'duty'. Its meant to discourage the very mentality posed by the parent poster; namely that shopping outside of your economy is bad for your economy.
The US likely has import duties as well, but you would have to check with your customs agency in order to confirm whether duty applies to the specific products you are interested in importing.
.phtml?
.. hrm:
Okay, lets hit netcraft (love you guys):
The site bsa.org is running Apache/1.3.27 OpenSSL/0.9.6g (Unix) AuthMySQL/2.20 PHP/4.1.2 on FreeBSD. FAQ
Why do I love the fact that a group that reps uber-commercial software interests uses
- A free Unix
- A free webserver
- A free web scripting language
- A free encryption library
Hrm, maybe its to save themselves the embarassement of accidentally mailing/civil-suiting themselves?
Ah, the joys of irony.
Privacy in your home is a right.
.. so why do you think you have an inherent right to yours?
Privacy once you go out of your home? Sorry, but when you step out of your home, you start infringing others rights
So long as your collected data doesn't turn into exactly 3:44 minutes of silence (the guys name was John Cage), you're fine.
Anyhow, as someone else pointed out, if you can generate the data via ramdomness, you're fine because you never actually copied the original song. You produced it independantly.