Shooting them, hmm, but, that is the intelligence of a society not an individual. So that is the flaw in thinking, survival of the fittest in terms if humanity, is not in regard to individual humans but in regard to humans within humane societies. Inhumane societies always die, they inherently destroy themselves ie. prey upon each other or are eliminated by more humane societies that contain large numbers of individuals who a willing to sacrifice their own personal advantage to promote group advantage.
Shooting a lion is a great example, go out dig the earth, chop the wood, smelt, cast and craft your weapon and of course ammunition, then collect, refine and mix your own gunpowder. To be fair as in survival of the fittest individual, invent it all yourself, up to and including the art of making fire etc. etc. etc.
The best metric of survivability is applied intelligence because when expressed by a society a whole range of individuals, hundreds of millions in fact survive, when left up to their own individual abilities they would die.
Of course attempting to calculate the survival of the fittest society and that interrelationship with the survival of the fittest individuals within that society not at as relates to that individuals ability to survive but also that individuals ability to promote the survivability of 'all' other individuals within that society and hence the society itself.
Exactly right, the original work. So I will cite only so long as wolfram alpha cites in it's search results. They are simply attempting to copyright pilfer. A mathematical manipulation of the data, does not alter the original data, 2 x data is still the original 'data' there is no creativity in applying a know or even a series of known algorithms. Now if the invented multiplication and them applied their invention of multiplication to someone else's original data that could be claimed to be creative, but using string of known algorithms in conjunction with someone else's creative query, all upon some one else's data, hardly gives anyone the right to pilfer copyright from three other parties.
The netbook market is a competitive market driven by price. Price of hardware and software. So low low cost. It is really hard to squeeze and thousand dollars worth of software, excluding entertainment on a $200 dollar PC. Right no arm on netbooks represents a huge price advantage because intel is burdened with windows after M$ market leveraged most intel netbooks to windows.
So which do the public really want an ultra portable PC that runs like the phone or one that runs like a desktop, battery life they don't have to think about or battery life they have to conserve, one completely ready to go out of the box (just like their phone) or one where they have to buy more stuff in fact triple or more the price in order to do any work.
Don't forget the netbook is in affect, the third pc after the desktop/notebook and smartphone, so on one course you pay triple software licence fees on the other course you pay none to get up and running. You can even image specials where you can buy all three in the one hit for a major discount excluding of course closed source proprietary software which you end up having to pay for three times.
Yeah, that is absolutely right 'er' wrong. Ever heard of bridging the digital divide, of giving everyone access to computing and the net. At least you are correct in one aspect it is about time everyone upgraded, to FOSS. Save money on hardware and really, really save money on software.Fit for puerpose, check out the windows EULA, it ain't fit, it is flab.
They might be using Bing engine but at least it wont say bing in the title or anywhere on the page. Bing was a really lame name choice, it was used years back when they asked a obvious question and you gave them the answer, it is like a polite version of 'dumbass'.
So I use M$'s search and its like here's your answer 'dumbass' you should have already know it. It reflects the old game shows before they got caught cheating, started off somewhat neutral and shifted to a more negative connotation.
M$ had better pick up pretty quick that if people prefer MSN search or Live Search ahead of 'BING/Dumbass' search let them use it.
Now you might think that is pretty petty but hey search engines are much of a muchness, so mild irritations are more than enough to shift choice. M$ catch up to google, never without street view, it is really handy and a fun thing to use and play with.
In this millennium, name all the countries that have invaded other countries, occupied them, randomly arrested and tortured it's citizens, demolished it's cities, bombed it's villages, stolen it's resources and, continually lied about what is going on. I have got to say, If you compared how Russia treated Georgia, after the Georgians attacked and murdered sanctioned Russian peacekeepers, versus how the US treated Iraq after Iraq 'er' now what exactly was it that Iraq did. Now this is from the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons against men, women, children, babies, grandparents, even kittens and puppies and, so far this century the only country whose leaders advocated nuclear first strike.
Want to laugh, than consider this. I came across a study where they used CGI to average out the appearance of many different portraits, what they found they was that the commonly accepted ideal of beauty was in fact looking the most average. So women are looking more and more average while men continue to retain greater uniqueness in appearance. As far as I remember the proportion of male to female births was driven most by the age of the parents when the child was conceived, older tender to produce more female offspring, younger tended to produce more male offspring.
Let's see, "data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men", seems rather a tiny sample out of 6.774 billion. Although it wouldn't surprise me that people out of the US might value appearance (as it turns out average normalised looks), ahead of personality, character and, intelligence for women and wealth ahead of personality, character, intelligence and, appearance in men.
So in the US best chances for reproduction in women is if you are born rich and can afford plastic surgery and for men if you are born rich and don't need to pay for plastic surgery. I always thought that being born a redneck in the backwoods of the Appalachians gave you the best chance of producing children in the double digits (sorry, couldn't resist, I really think people out of the Appalachians are fine, except of course for those mountain top removal asshats).
Also to be fair, cumulative affects of many EM emitters are more likely to have an impact, where as one on it's own might not be that severe. So if you live near an airport, adjacent to a cell tower, under major power lines, in a city with free wi-fi and, you use wi-fi at home and are talking to someone on a cell phone, in front of a microwave while it heats your dinner, yep, you are slow broiling your genes in a rather dangerous manner. Now should you choose to do these upon a regular basis over the long term, odds are you will die of some type of cancer, unless of course you are run over by bus or something else kills you before you finally manage glow in the dark.
Add to that, the one organ most likely to be affected, is the one that has the most neurons firing away, so symptoms perceived are very unlikely to exist outside of that organ but it certainly shouldn't negate the possible factual existence of those perceived symptoms. So people suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity, too be blunt, are likely to be a little nuts, not their fault but the human organ most likely to be sensitive to EM damage is going to be the brain.
In the case of refining searches that suit me, basically built around and extensive analysis of my nature, I too would feel far more comfortable with a local app that records and analyses my searches and sends more explicit still but anonymised search requests to an external search engine. Not necessarily because they can't be trusted, oh wait yeah, it is because those greedy buggers absolutely can't be trusted.
As for M$ trying to build a search engine around a limited section of a selective group willing to participate,
1. People are different with a wide variety of language and technical skills inevitably tilting results - "BING"
2. For search to be most effective it must be attuned to the individual and of course the type of information queried in affect more than one type of search engine - "BING".
3. Most people ain't that dumb, this game has more to do with people loading up silverfish and running up bing hits to get ahead of yahoo than improving bing searches - "BING"
4. Yes, I am being an annoying insurance salesman - "BING";D.
That is a slightly obtuse view of a non copyright academic paper. The real principle behind the idea is open research rather than closed research. Academic papers that a worked on not by one person but by a whole bunch of people across many universities, academic works that are never really finished, just in affect snap shots in time but and revised in future editions.
Of course to be an academic paper they would still have to be properly reference and cited and all contributors and the contributions detailed (perhaps not in the document but in an adjoining document). So the appropriate people would still gain recognition and more importantly the best work is lightly to receive the most attention, rather than one with the best publicists, the right 'er' wrong, corporate funding or based on politics of the day.
So continual review, continual recognition, continual improvement and of course free and easy access for, well, everyone. A great educational resource that will save governments all over the world, tens of billions of dollars, free digital texts. Relatively free, some will get paid to contribute whether by government or corporations, some will do it for free seeking recognition and some will do it just because they can. Kind of reminds me of something a bit penguinny.
Hmm, good guys with nuclear weapons, weapons designed to kill millions of people at a throw. Sounds like a misnomer to me, much like military intelligence. Goods guys do not have or develop mass murdering weapons, you are really going to have to settle for not quite so evil guys with weapons of mass destruction, otherwise you really are just fooling yourself much the same as they try to fool everyone else with PR=B$ (I hear there are top profits in all kinds of human killing weapons, really sick, huh ?, HUH!).
The US government right now is bending over backwards spending billions of dollars, basically forcing every other country to adopt nuclear weapons, well that's the choice isn't it, either spend billions on a high tech defence force of mass destruction or invest a portion of that on nuclear weapons. The US seems quite content to invade countries who don't have nuclear weapons and hold discussions with countries who do have nuclear weapons, not the brightest message if you want to limit nuclear proliferation.
There isn't even any discussion of first strike, nuclear tipped stealth cruise missiles. Everyone is still pretending they don't exist.
No, the big problem now, is that there are around a billion people in coastal cities, cities that were not here thousands of years ago. Of course there have been numerous ancient cities, lost to deserts and buried under the sea etc. none in recent times but people seem to have forgotten how serious the impact will really be. If it is bad enough hundreds of millions of people will die, just like in ancient destroyed cities where the much smaller populations perished.
The only option is the safe options that reduces risk for hundreds of millions of people not the idiot ass hat option that profits a few thousand people. What are these people thinking risking the lives of millions to feed the greed of thousands.
Next up and more importantly, burning any kind of fuel generates a whole range of toxic pollutants, carcinogens by the tons, all building up in the air we breath and the water we drink. Some of the most disgusting and greedy psychopaths on the planet a playing games with pollution, playing games with greenhouse emission's, carbon taxes to be applied to the poor and to be collected by the rich as carbon trade offs or as booms and busts on the futures markets. Meanwhile they pollute the planet with every kind of toxic element that will generate a profit for them, if not in one country than another.
Has anyone started to notice that any time any pressure starts to build on any type of pollution other than carbon, they will attempt to shift the pollution discussion back to carbon, greenhouse gas, climate change etc. where they can bullshit back and for, with their junk scientists and junk reports, purposefully miss-interpreted reports and of course out an out bullshit.
Climate change or not, has absolutely no impact on the continual build up of toxic pollutants within out living and eventually dying environment. Personally I ain't all that bothered by carbon, it will clean up given a relatively short time but I am deeply disturbed by the continual build up of carcinogens, of hormone-mimicking chemicals and actual poisons in the environment. For those greedy politicians and financiers that want to play with "carbon cap and trade", just fuck off.
It really has a lot more to do with 'bean counting' and corporate politics. Some executive within a corporation comes up with a plan by which the corporation can save money, say off shoring service support calls. Real easy to calculate, local service call costs say $15.00 and they have a quote from an off shore company who 'er' guarantees quality calls for $1.00 per call, which then calculates in a saving of millions of dollars. Another executive steps up a says regardless of 'guarantees' the service calls will be bad because of language difficulties, no direct association between the service call person, the employee and the company (wrong motivations bad service), giving away company intelligence (product details, history, reliability, marketability etc), lack of product expertise and breakdown of feedback within the product development cycle.
The demand is then given to substantiate this in dollar terms for management, keeping in mind management is likely to be nepotistic and cronyism based ie. simple answers only, making it virtually impossible to provide a simple dollar based equation and answer, so a complex one relating to customer relations and long term product sales is given with only 'estimated values'. Upper management knee jerk ignorant response, what do you have something against profits, do you work for the customers or the company, 'Your Fired'.
Of course end result is, market share losses without monopolies and with monopolies legislation to correct gross dysfunction. Now of course this doesn't happen with one issue but with many issues within corporations. Ignorance and greed (marrying pretty but stupid and greedy was never really that bright) for short term gains at higher levels of management in corporations result in the search for quick, easy answers with simple easily definable equations, right wrong or indifferent doesn't matter, as long as they get their bonuses and do not go to jail for it, oh and take credit for the success and of course shift blame for the failure.
Want better corporations, you need far better corporate executives ie. tighter laws that make the executives legally (both civil and criminal) liable for their decisions (the actions of the corporation) and of course their incompetence, it really is that simple. Start applying significant fines and jail terms directly to the corporate executives, it really is pointless punishing shareholders unless they had direct involvement in the decisions. When corporations are killing people to generate higher profits through fraud and negligence, than those corporate executives should really be tried for murder.
The biggest reason that facebook et al need to be pursued on this, is not just the theft of image but, far more importantly the theft of your honesty and integrity. By using your image, they are implying that you approve of and recommend the product that your image is attached to. It is very much a theft of who you are. So not a copyright infringement but a fraudulent misrepresentation, it really is one of the worst 'marketing' abuses I have ever come across.
That facebook would stoop this low is a real warning to users or more accurately as it turns out, the used of facebook, time to shift locations, things are bound to get worse as try push to monetise - 'you'.
Of course M$ was the most significant company to call open source advocates, Linux zealots, a cancer on commercial software, communists use open source, terrorists use open source, hackers use open source and M$ did it for years, from Gates down, as a "Marketing Tactic" and only stopped because it wasn't working, in fact it was creating permanent converts who would never go back to the evangelicals of greed at M$.
They consistently lie, out and out fabrications, that they only give up on when threatened by court actions. In fact M$ really did lead the way when it came to corporations out and out lying to customers in order to sell product and relying on lawyers to clean up the mess.
It is still a reasonable expectation that people you deal with act honestly and with integrity and when they do not, they will be crushed by the law and the courts. If a corporation acts in such a manner that they are in fact expected to act unreasonably and with a complete lack of integrity, that why should they continue to exist, of what benefit to society are they.
Far simpler, simply publish the idea ie. proof that you came up with it. If it is any good, greedy corporations will inevitably try to steal it. Now they have got it and you have to get it back. Not that hard, thanks to other greedy corporations who will use your substantiated claim of originality and a whole bunch of lawyers to steal the idea back from the other corporation.
See, cost you virtually nothing to generate a return from a very good idea. Of course the so, so crappy mass consumption fad idea will fail in this area but the very best will survive. So set your idea free and see where it goes.
What is happening is the uniqueness in games are long gone. They are all much the same and variants of each other, making replay ability and obviously keeping the game no longer as desirable. So buy a new game, plays somewhat similar as an older one in your game library, which tends to kill of the replay ability of the older title so you dump it, either lend it out, trade it, give it away or sell it.
Just like any other non consumable, when you don't need it or want it any more, you get rid of it. It really is only sheer greed by all mass media corporations, who are attempting to steal, your investment in the purchase from you, simple common theft and fraud. That they would talk publicly about it with out getting promptly investigated by government consumer protections organisations shows how much those organisations have been corrupted in the last decade.
In this case it represents the difference in slander laws. You can be sued for slander if you make a statement of fact about someone that you cannot prove to be factual in a court of law, rather than only having to demonstrate that you believed that fact to be true. The simple solution is to couch statements as opinions rather than as facts or where you manage a forum ensure that all users are informed that 'all' postings regardless of content are the 'opinions' of the poster and should not be construed as statements of fact, include an agreement to this in the sign up that no one reads.
So opinion is not suppressed only false statements of facts. Would it be better if they took on similar laws in the US, probably, especially when politicians, lawyers, PR executives, lobbyists, corporate executives purposefully lie to you and when you go to the trouble to prove that lie false, without any shame, conscience or, remorse they look you straight in the eye and repeat the exact same lie again and again and again, even when those lies are personal attacks and attacks against organisations, hiding behind the deceit that they believed them to be true at the time.
I also like the idea of police officers visiting every home and place of business, more as a social visit and to establish better ties between the police and civilians. You know, get to know 'your' local police officer and, establish a more social contact with at least one officer whom you can contact in the event of need. Also it would help to remind officers of what their role really is in assisting the public to maintain a civil and orderly society.
Of course while it might work in Australia, in the US with pepper spray and taser abuse out of control and with 'public' discussions of the effectiveness, legality and use of torture it would likely have the opposite affect and drive an even greater wedge between 'law enforcement' and the public.
You have really forgotten that google uses what it produces. So free open source also represents a significant on going saving to those that produce it, no closed source proprietary licence fees, no external competitor controls over important internal tools, intelligently defining the future software infrastructure. So from google's point of view the more corporations that use it's open source tools, the more corporations that are available to inject code aka capital into those open source tools, so google saves money as well as making money.
Google has to diversify or inevitably die a death of a thousand cuts as every other corporation attempts to cut into their search market share. In reality the war between google and M$ doesn't really exist except in ballmer's head, google is simply trying to diversify, give itself a wider market base to give it much greater long term viability. M$ is wedded to office and windows and is dying a death of a thousand cuts, MSN 'er' Live 'er' Bing (annoying insurance salesman code for 'ground hog day' or yet another google search destroyer) just really isn't going anywhere. The mind really boogles as to what M$ will choose as the name for their next rebranding of their search engine.
Not really true. Only the minority are truly greedy, those that no matter how much they have always want more. The majority truly do share and care, whilst the greedy minority try to hide their psychopathy behind the claim that the everyone else that struggles for a comfortable place to live, healthy and satisfying food for the family, a future for their children basically trying live healthy and happy life with good neighbours, is somehow greedy, a real lie.
In this case the fourth estate who sold 'truthiness' to the highest bidder better suck it up, because if the fourth estate is truly protected than it is the truth that the fourth estate can produce that will be protected not the corporations that profit by the abuse of the truth. So protect the 'truth' in the fourth estate, corporations that hide, distort, and downright fabricate the 'truth' should be punished for the harm caused by that deceit, it is the fourth estate that is protected not mass media news as entertainment and advertising, in fact that version of it and it's commentators, corporate talking heads should specifically be targeted, prosecuted and imprisoned for the harm they wilfully caused to fourth estate based upon 'true' psychopathic greed.
If you serious about losing weight, you can take this advice from anyone, eat healthy. No junk foods, no junk additives, unless you know and understand all the independents and, know them to be natural (as in really no just labelling) and safe (as in really no just marketing) do not buy it and do not eat it. The obesity problem is tied to the addictive nature of the neuro stimulants used to create perceptions of flavour and beyond the B$=PR marketing used to give that 'hit' to keep people coming back again and again, hell, they even brag about the addictive nature of junk food in commercials promoting them. Not to forget if it says 'diet' on the label, bin it, that is just code for junk additive plus.
On the flip side, if you have shares in junk food companies, sell 'NOW', if would appear their customer base is shrinking and not from dieting. Of course those additional helth problems might not just be from a weight problem but also from a health problem of ingesting too many chemicals pretending to be food.
So what this report truly points out, is the old world control of the message, what is seen, heard or read, is no longer the only message that gets to the public eye or, the government eye. Of course politicians give a damn, those old excuses for their clearly biased and corrupt decisions no longer wash quite so readily.
A bit of mass media B$, some upbeat talking head talking points, some junk science reports and statistics and now what, crap is crap, it all used to work so well in the eighties and nineties and now it just blows up in the faces of the corporate liars and the politicians trying to hide behind those lies. So that article like all the others articles coming out about all the other bits of corruption going on are there to inform about what is currently going not because it is a new or unique tactic but, because every corporate lie, every political deceit needs to be caught out and exposed on the web.
It could all turn out to be a very interesting new political tactic for advancement, anonymously expose your competitor on the same side of politics to the public and they will no longer be able to hide behind lawyers and PR=B$ mass media spin, it just doesn't work that well any more, they're out and your in.
Well to be fair, if you produced it, means if you created a new and unique variant of the original that does not detract from the original, substantive actual work ie. taking a slice of pie from a pie diminishes that pie but creating a new a unique copy of piece of that pie leaves the original pie completely intact. The value in copyright just like patents is the value of the result to society not the artificial profits generated by legislated protectionism.
If you choose to release your work, the you have released it, if you wish to keep it secret, then don't release it, keep it to yourself as your private possession. Why would anyone consider it appropriate for the government to protect this pseudo mechanism for keeping released to the public works private from that same public, especially as it can be readily demonstrated that a lot of these works are of no real value to society, as required under law in order to be protected by copyright. In point of fact many of those illegally protected works are detrimental to society and are illegal to be shown publicly not to protect copyrights but to protect the general populace from the perceived harm caused by those works to members of society.
Copyrights are parasitical in nature, they bleed resources off a society, they neither house, nourish, heal, clothe, transport nor provide energy or necessary infrastructure. If fact those resources as set aside to feed copyright only so long as the works produced do provide a real return of true value and merit and thus justify the opportunity provided for them to generate profit for a short time to justify the original investment.
However should those works be of no value to society based upon qualitative nature of the work than they should not be protected ie. is it appropriate for the Government and hence the taxpayer to protect the profits of pornography, sure freedom of speech needs to be observed but creating a free copy is free speech and also is required to be protected and, in point of fact should take precedence as pornography fails the basic test for copyright protection, that it must be of value to the sciences and useful arts.
Slashdot Mirror
Shooting them, hmm, but, that is the intelligence of a society not an individual. So that is the flaw in thinking, survival of the fittest in terms if humanity, is not in regard to individual humans but in regard to humans within humane societies. Inhumane societies always die, they inherently destroy themselves ie. prey upon each other or are eliminated by more humane societies that contain large numbers of individuals who a willing to sacrifice their own personal advantage to promote group advantage.
Shooting a lion is a great example, go out dig the earth, chop the wood, smelt, cast and craft your weapon and of course ammunition, then collect, refine and mix your own gunpowder. To be fair as in survival of the fittest individual, invent it all yourself, up to and including the art of making fire etc. etc. etc.
The best metric of survivability is applied intelligence because when expressed by a society a whole range of individuals, hundreds of millions in fact survive, when left up to their own individual abilities they would die.
Of course attempting to calculate the survival of the fittest society and that interrelationship with the survival of the fittest individuals within that society not at as relates to that individuals ability to survive but also that individuals ability to promote the survivability of 'all' other individuals within that society and hence the society itself.
Exactly right, the original work. So I will cite only so long as wolfram alpha cites in it's search results. They are simply attempting to copyright pilfer. A mathematical manipulation of the data, does not alter the original data, 2 x data is still the original 'data' there is no creativity in applying a know or even a series of known algorithms. Now if the invented multiplication and them applied their invention of multiplication to someone else's original data that could be claimed to be creative, but using string of known algorithms in conjunction with someone else's creative query, all upon some one else's data, hardly gives anyone the right to pilfer copyright from three other parties.
The netbook market is a competitive market driven by price. Price of hardware and software. So low low cost. It is really hard to squeeze and thousand dollars worth of software, excluding entertainment on a $200 dollar PC. Right no arm on netbooks represents a huge price advantage because intel is burdened with windows after M$ market leveraged most intel netbooks to windows.
So which do the public really want an ultra portable PC that runs like the phone or one that runs like a desktop, battery life they don't have to think about or battery life they have to conserve, one completely ready to go out of the box (just like their phone) or one where they have to buy more stuff in fact triple or more the price in order to do any work.
Don't forget the netbook is in affect, the third pc after the desktop/notebook and smartphone, so on one course you pay triple software licence fees on the other course you pay none to get up and running. You can even image specials where you can buy all three in the one hit for a major discount excluding of course closed source proprietary software which you end up having to pay for three times.
Yeah, that is absolutely right 'er' wrong. Ever heard of bridging the digital divide, of giving everyone access to computing and the net. At least you are correct in one aspect it is about time everyone upgraded, to FOSS. Save money on hardware and really, really save money on software.Fit for puerpose, check out the windows EULA, it ain't fit, it is flab.
They might be using Bing engine but at least it wont say bing in the title or anywhere on the page. Bing was a really lame name choice, it was used years back when they asked a obvious question and you gave them the answer, it is like a polite version of 'dumbass'.
So I use M$'s search and its like here's your answer 'dumbass' you should have already know it. It reflects the old game shows before they got caught cheating, started off somewhat neutral and shifted to a more negative connotation.
M$ had better pick up pretty quick that if people prefer MSN search or Live Search ahead of 'BING/Dumbass' search let them use it.
Now you might think that is pretty petty but hey search engines are much of a muchness, so mild irritations are more than enough to shift choice. M$ catch up to google, never without street view, it is really handy and a fun thing to use and play with.
In this millennium, name all the countries that have invaded other countries, occupied them, randomly arrested and tortured it's citizens, demolished it's cities, bombed it's villages, stolen it's resources and, continually lied about what is going on. I have got to say, If you compared how Russia treated Georgia, after the Georgians attacked and murdered sanctioned Russian peacekeepers, versus how the US treated Iraq after Iraq 'er' now what exactly was it that Iraq did. Now this is from the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons against men, women, children, babies, grandparents, even kittens and puppies and, so far this century the only country whose leaders advocated nuclear first strike.
Want to laugh, than consider this. I came across a study where they used CGI to average out the appearance of many different portraits, what they found they was that the commonly accepted ideal of beauty was in fact looking the most average. So women are looking more and more average while men continue to retain greater uniqueness in appearance. As far as I remember the proportion of male to female births was driven most by the age of the parents when the child was conceived, older tender to produce more female offspring, younger tended to produce more male offspring.
Let's see, "data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men", seems rather a tiny sample out of 6.774 billion. Although it wouldn't surprise me that people out of the US might value appearance (as it turns out average normalised looks), ahead of personality, character and, intelligence for women and wealth ahead of personality, character, intelligence and, appearance in men.
So in the US best chances for reproduction in women is if you are born rich and can afford plastic surgery and for men if you are born rich and don't need to pay for plastic surgery. I always thought that being born a redneck in the backwoods of the Appalachians gave you the best chance of producing children in the double digits (sorry, couldn't resist, I really think people out of the Appalachians are fine, except of course for those mountain top removal asshats).
Perhaps this will cheer you up, 1984 and DRM issues, man, those irony gremlins are working overtime ;D.
Hmm, wirelessly delete someone's whole library as a built in 'feature', now there's a hack waiting to happen.
Also to be fair, cumulative affects of many EM emitters are more likely to have an impact, where as one on it's own might not be that severe. So if you live near an airport, adjacent to a cell tower, under major power lines, in a city with free wi-fi and, you use wi-fi at home and are talking to someone on a cell phone, in front of a microwave while it heats your dinner, yep, you are slow broiling your genes in a rather dangerous manner. Now should you choose to do these upon a regular basis over the long term, odds are you will die of some type of cancer, unless of course you are run over by bus or something else kills you before you finally manage glow in the dark.
Add to that, the one organ most likely to be affected, is the one that has the most neurons firing away, so symptoms perceived are very unlikely to exist outside of that organ but it certainly shouldn't negate the possible factual existence of those perceived symptoms. So people suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity, too be blunt, are likely to be a little nuts, not their fault but the human organ most likely to be sensitive to EM damage is going to be the brain.
In the case of refining searches that suit me, basically built around and extensive analysis of my nature, I too would feel far more comfortable with a local app that records and analyses my searches and sends more explicit still but anonymised search requests to an external search engine. Not necessarily because they can't be trusted, oh wait yeah, it is because those greedy buggers absolutely can't be trusted.
As for M$ trying to build a search engine around a limited section of a selective group willing to participate,
1. People are different with a wide variety of language and technical skills inevitably tilting results - "BING"
2. For search to be most effective it must be attuned to the individual and of course the type of information queried in affect more than one type of search engine - "BING".
3. Most people ain't that dumb, this game has more to do with people loading up silverfish and running up bing hits to get ahead of yahoo than improving bing searches - "BING"
4. Yes, I am being an annoying insurance salesman - "BING" ;D.
That is a slightly obtuse view of a non copyright academic paper. The real principle behind the idea is open research rather than closed research. Academic papers that a worked on not by one person but by a whole bunch of people across many universities, academic works that are never really finished, just in affect snap shots in time but and revised in future editions.
Of course to be an academic paper they would still have to be properly reference and cited and all contributors and the contributions detailed (perhaps not in the document but in an adjoining document). So the appropriate people would still gain recognition and more importantly the best work is lightly to receive the most attention, rather than one with the best publicists, the right 'er' wrong, corporate funding or based on politics of the day.
So continual review, continual recognition, continual improvement and of course free and easy access for, well, everyone. A great educational resource that will save governments all over the world, tens of billions of dollars, free digital texts. Relatively free, some will get paid to contribute whether by government or corporations, some will do it for free seeking recognition and some will do it just because they can. Kind of reminds me of something a bit penguinny.
Hmm, good guys with nuclear weapons, weapons designed to kill millions of people at a throw. Sounds like a misnomer to me, much like military intelligence. Goods guys do not have or develop mass murdering weapons, you are really going to have to settle for not quite so evil guys with weapons of mass destruction, otherwise you really are just fooling yourself much the same as they try to fool everyone else with PR=B$ (I hear there are top profits in all kinds of human killing weapons, really sick, huh ?, HUH!).
The US government right now is bending over backwards spending billions of dollars, basically forcing every other country to adopt nuclear weapons, well that's the choice isn't it, either spend billions on a high tech defence force of mass destruction or invest a portion of that on nuclear weapons. The US seems quite content to invade countries who don't have nuclear weapons and hold discussions with countries who do have nuclear weapons, not the brightest message if you want to limit nuclear proliferation.
There isn't even any discussion of first strike, nuclear tipped stealth cruise missiles. Everyone is still pretending they don't exist.
No, the big problem now, is that there are around a billion people in coastal cities, cities that were not here thousands of years ago. Of course there have been numerous ancient cities, lost to deserts and buried under the sea etc. none in recent times but people seem to have forgotten how serious the impact will really be. If it is bad enough hundreds of millions of people will die, just like in ancient destroyed cities where the much smaller populations perished.
The only option is the safe options that reduces risk for hundreds of millions of people not the idiot ass hat option that profits a few thousand people. What are these people thinking risking the lives of millions to feed the greed of thousands.
Next up and more importantly, burning any kind of fuel generates a whole range of toxic pollutants, carcinogens by the tons, all building up in the air we breath and the water we drink. Some of the most disgusting and greedy psychopaths on the planet a playing games with pollution, playing games with greenhouse emission's, carbon taxes to be applied to the poor and to be collected by the rich as carbon trade offs or as booms and busts on the futures markets. Meanwhile they pollute the planet with every kind of toxic element that will generate a profit for them, if not in one country than another.
Has anyone started to notice that any time any pressure starts to build on any type of pollution other than carbon, they will attempt to shift the pollution discussion back to carbon, greenhouse gas, climate change etc. where they can bullshit back and for, with their junk scientists and junk reports, purposefully miss-interpreted reports and of course out an out bullshit.
Climate change or not, has absolutely no impact on the continual build up of toxic pollutants within out living and eventually dying environment. Personally I ain't all that bothered by carbon, it will clean up given a relatively short time but I am deeply disturbed by the continual build up of carcinogens, of hormone-mimicking chemicals and actual poisons in the environment. For those greedy politicians and financiers that want to play with "carbon cap and trade", just fuck off.
It really has a lot more to do with 'bean counting' and corporate politics. Some executive within a corporation comes up with a plan by which the corporation can save money, say off shoring service support calls. Real easy to calculate, local service call costs say $15.00 and they have a quote from an off shore company who 'er' guarantees quality calls for $1.00 per call, which then calculates in a saving of millions of dollars. Another executive steps up a says regardless of 'guarantees' the service calls will be bad because of language difficulties, no direct association between the service call person, the employee and the company (wrong motivations bad service), giving away company intelligence (product details, history, reliability, marketability etc), lack of product expertise and breakdown of feedback within the product development cycle.
The demand is then given to substantiate this in dollar terms for management, keeping in mind management is likely to be nepotistic and cronyism based ie. simple answers only, making it virtually impossible to provide a simple dollar based equation and answer, so a complex one relating to customer relations and long term product sales is given with only 'estimated values'. Upper management knee jerk ignorant response, what do you have something against profits, do you work for the customers or the company, 'Your Fired'.
Of course end result is, market share losses without monopolies and with monopolies legislation to correct gross dysfunction. Now of course this doesn't happen with one issue but with many issues within corporations. Ignorance and greed (marrying pretty but stupid and greedy was never really that bright) for short term gains at higher levels of management in corporations result in the search for quick, easy answers with simple easily definable equations, right wrong or indifferent doesn't matter, as long as they get their bonuses and do not go to jail for it, oh and take credit for the success and of course shift blame for the failure.
Want better corporations, you need far better corporate executives ie. tighter laws that make the executives legally (both civil and criminal) liable for their decisions (the actions of the corporation) and of course their incompetence, it really is that simple. Start applying significant fines and jail terms directly to the corporate executives, it really is pointless punishing shareholders unless they had direct involvement in the decisions. When corporations are killing people to generate higher profits through fraud and negligence, than those corporate executives should really be tried for murder.
The biggest reason that facebook et al need to be pursued on this, is not just the theft of image but, far more importantly the theft of your honesty and integrity. By using your image, they are implying that you approve of and recommend the product that your image is attached to. It is very much a theft of who you are. So not a copyright infringement but a fraudulent misrepresentation, it really is one of the worst 'marketing' abuses I have ever come across.
That facebook would stoop this low is a real warning to users or more accurately as it turns out, the used of facebook, time to shift locations, things are bound to get worse as try push to monetise - 'you'.
Of course M$ was the most significant company to call open source advocates, Linux zealots, a cancer on commercial software, communists use open source, terrorists use open source, hackers use open source and M$ did it for years, from Gates down, as a "Marketing Tactic" and only stopped because it wasn't working, in fact it was creating permanent converts who would never go back to the evangelicals of greed at M$.
They consistently lie, out and out fabrications, that they only give up on when threatened by court actions. In fact M$ really did lead the way when it came to corporations out and out lying to customers in order to sell product and relying on lawyers to clean up the mess.
It is still a reasonable expectation that people you deal with act honestly and with integrity and when they do not, they will be crushed by the law and the courts. If a corporation acts in such a manner that they are in fact expected to act unreasonably and with a complete lack of integrity, that why should they continue to exist, of what benefit to society are they.
Far simpler, simply publish the idea ie. proof that you came up with it. If it is any good, greedy corporations will inevitably try to steal it. Now they have got it and you have to get it back. Not that hard, thanks to other greedy corporations who will use your substantiated claim of originality and a whole bunch of lawyers to steal the idea back from the other corporation.
See, cost you virtually nothing to generate a return from a very good idea. Of course the so, so crappy mass consumption fad idea will fail in this area but the very best will survive. So set your idea free and see where it goes.
What is happening is the uniqueness in games are long gone. They are all much the same and variants of each other, making replay ability and obviously keeping the game no longer as desirable. So buy a new game, plays somewhat similar as an older one in your game library, which tends to kill of the replay ability of the older title so you dump it, either lend it out, trade it, give it away or sell it.
Just like any other non consumable, when you don't need it or want it any more, you get rid of it. It really is only sheer greed by all mass media corporations, who are attempting to steal, your investment in the purchase from you, simple common theft and fraud. That they would talk publicly about it with out getting promptly investigated by government consumer protections organisations shows how much those organisations have been corrupted in the last decade.
In this case it represents the difference in slander laws. You can be sued for slander if you make a statement of fact about someone that you cannot prove to be factual in a court of law, rather than only having to demonstrate that you believed that fact to be true. The simple solution is to couch statements as opinions rather than as facts or where you manage a forum ensure that all users are informed that 'all' postings regardless of content are the 'opinions' of the poster and should not be construed as statements of fact, include an agreement to this in the sign up that no one reads.
So opinion is not suppressed only false statements of facts. Would it be better if they took on similar laws in the US, probably, especially when politicians, lawyers, PR executives, lobbyists, corporate executives purposefully lie to you and when you go to the trouble to prove that lie false, without any shame, conscience or, remorse they look you straight in the eye and repeat the exact same lie again and again and again, even when those lies are personal attacks and attacks against organisations, hiding behind the deceit that they believed them to be true at the time.
I also like the idea of police officers visiting every home and place of business, more as a social visit and to establish better ties between the police and civilians. You know, get to know 'your' local police officer and, establish a more social contact with at least one officer whom you can contact in the event of need. Also it would help to remind officers of what their role really is in assisting the public to maintain a civil and orderly society.
Of course while it might work in Australia, in the US with pepper spray and taser abuse out of control and with 'public' discussions of the effectiveness, legality and use of torture it would likely have the opposite affect and drive an even greater wedge between 'law enforcement' and the public.
You have really forgotten that google uses what it produces. So free open source also represents a significant on going saving to those that produce it, no closed source proprietary licence fees, no external competitor controls over important internal tools, intelligently defining the future software infrastructure. So from google's point of view the more corporations that use it's open source tools, the more corporations that are available to inject code aka capital into those open source tools, so google saves money as well as making money.
Google has to diversify or inevitably die a death of a thousand cuts as every other corporation attempts to cut into their search market share. In reality the war between google and M$ doesn't really exist except in ballmer's head, google is simply trying to diversify, give itself a wider market base to give it much greater long term viability. M$ is wedded to office and windows and is dying a death of a thousand cuts, MSN 'er' Live 'er' Bing (annoying insurance salesman code for 'ground hog day' or yet another google search destroyer) just really isn't going anywhere. The mind really boogles as to what M$ will choose as the name for their next rebranding of their search engine.
Not really true. Only the minority are truly greedy, those that no matter how much they have always want more. The majority truly do share and care, whilst the greedy minority try to hide their psychopathy behind the claim that the everyone else that struggles for a comfortable place to live, healthy and satisfying food for the family, a future for their children basically trying live healthy and happy life with good neighbours, is somehow greedy, a real lie.
In this case the fourth estate who sold 'truthiness' to the highest bidder better suck it up, because if the fourth estate is truly protected than it is the truth that the fourth estate can produce that will be protected not the corporations that profit by the abuse of the truth. So protect the 'truth' in the fourth estate, corporations that hide, distort, and downright fabricate the 'truth' should be punished for the harm caused by that deceit, it is the fourth estate that is protected not mass media news as entertainment and advertising, in fact that version of it and it's commentators, corporate talking heads should specifically be targeted, prosecuted and imprisoned for the harm they wilfully caused to fourth estate based upon 'true' psychopathic greed.
If you serious about losing weight, you can take this advice from anyone, eat healthy. No junk foods, no junk additives, unless you know and understand all the independents and, know them to be natural (as in really no just labelling) and safe (as in really no just marketing) do not buy it and do not eat it. The obesity problem is tied to the addictive nature of the neuro stimulants used to create perceptions of flavour and beyond the B$=PR marketing used to give that 'hit' to keep people coming back again and again, hell, they even brag about the addictive nature of junk food in commercials promoting them. Not to forget if it says 'diet' on the label, bin it, that is just code for junk additive plus.
On the flip side, if you have shares in junk food companies, sell 'NOW', if would appear their customer base is shrinking and not from dieting. Of course those additional helth problems might not just be from a weight problem but also from a health problem of ingesting too many chemicals pretending to be food.
So what this report truly points out, is the old world control of the message, what is seen, heard or read, is no longer the only message that gets to the public eye or, the government eye. Of course politicians give a damn, those old excuses for their clearly biased and corrupt decisions no longer wash quite so readily.
A bit of mass media B$, some upbeat talking head talking points, some junk science reports and statistics and now what, crap is crap, it all used to work so well in the eighties and nineties and now it just blows up in the faces of the corporate liars and the politicians trying to hide behind those lies. So that article like all the others articles coming out about all the other bits of corruption going on are there to inform about what is currently going not because it is a new or unique tactic but, because every corporate lie, every political deceit needs to be caught out and exposed on the web.
It could all turn out to be a very interesting new political tactic for advancement, anonymously expose your competitor on the same side of politics to the public and they will no longer be able to hide behind lawyers and PR=B$ mass media spin, it just doesn't work that well any more, they're out and your in.
Well to be fair, if you produced it, means if you created a new and unique variant of the original that does not detract from the original, substantive actual work ie. taking a slice of pie from a pie diminishes that pie but creating a new a unique copy of piece of that pie leaves the original pie completely intact. The value in copyright just like patents is the value of the result to society not the artificial profits generated by legislated protectionism.
If you choose to release your work, the you have released it, if you wish to keep it secret, then don't release it, keep it to yourself as your private possession. Why would anyone consider it appropriate for the government to protect this pseudo mechanism for keeping released to the public works private from that same public, especially as it can be readily demonstrated that a lot of these works are of no real value to society, as required under law in order to be protected by copyright. In point of fact many of those illegally protected works are detrimental to society and are illegal to be shown publicly not to protect copyrights but to protect the general populace from the perceived harm caused by those works to members of society.
Copyrights are parasitical in nature, they bleed resources off a society, they neither house, nourish, heal, clothe, transport nor provide energy or necessary infrastructure. If fact those resources as set aside to feed copyright only so long as the works produced do provide a real return of true value and merit and thus justify the opportunity provided for them to generate profit for a short time to justify the original investment.
However should those works be of no value to society based upon qualitative nature of the work than they should not be protected ie. is it appropriate for the Government and hence the taxpayer to protect the profits of pornography, sure freedom of speech needs to be observed but creating a free copy is free speech and also is required to be protected and, in point of fact should take precedence as pornography fails the basic test for copyright protection, that it must be of value to the sciences and useful arts.