Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy. - Sun Tzu
perhaps, but there is a fundamental difference between strategy and tactics. The critical word in your quote is battlefield. Strategy is about who gets to determine where that is. To get the best of both worlds, it is best to seize an objective that the enemy must reclaim, then stand on the defensive.+
I'm a programmer, not something else instead. I don't particularly care if haberdashers make more money because the employment prospects and income potential is increased because someone steals software. I care that my own emplyment prospects and income potential are reduced as a result.
While TFA does not link directly to the data, the information in question
can be found here.
The short version is that the BSA and IDC counted the amount of software shipped and used interviews to determine the amount of software installed.
While both the BSA and IDC might well have a conflict of interest with regard to the surveys outcome, no secret has been made of their methodology and the conclusions are, IMO hardly controversial.
The notion that copyright infringement damages the prospects of companies that write software and therefore the employment prospects of programmers (oops, there's my conflict of interest) strikes me as perfectly reasonable. This does not, of course prevent me from being paying close and paranoid attention to the methods of enforcement advocated by the BSA.
Honestly, how many times a day do you use the "z" key on your keyboard? really, it's hardly useful at all. A keyboard without a "z" key would be ever so much safer, so why not require all keyboards be made without a "z" key?
That people abuse the presense of a built in option does not disqualify that option from occasionally being of critical importance.
Gotta say that a system like this would be a lot more dangerous on a motorcycle than in a car. Motorbikes are considerably better at sudden acceleration than sudden braking. If you haven't had time to "set up" the brakes prior to actually applying them, your chances of locking up increase considerably. Locking up the (front) brakes on a bike usually means you're going down (exceptions may apply for particularly talented riders).
For this reason it's considerably more likely on a bike than in a car that the response to a given situation might be "go faster". Of course, this doesn't mean that it's actually likely. When someone tries to use my lane, my response is usually slow down (or, if I'm in a really bad mood, kick the f#*&ers door). However, if there's someone tailgating me, I'll usually speed up instead.
In any case, removing options from the person in control of heavy machinery when that option might be useful in an emergency, regardless of how unlikely it is that that option is necessary, hardly strikes me as wise policy.
(I've really got to cut down on my use of parenthetical remarks.)
Information they are asking is outrageous, is there any way they can force you to submit it?
Unfortunately, yes, simply make being issued an airline ticket conditional upon completing an electronic form: "billgates@microsoft.com is not a valid response, please amend form and resubmit."
chances are you can still get around large chunks of it, but if you can be required to submit some form of valid ID before commencing filling the form in, there are lots of ways to filter out invalid responses (particularly in combination with federal databases). I suspect you're going to get tired of filling the form in over and over again before the filters get tired of bouncing your submission.
You haven't calculated the time taken to actually write the book into the calculation. I suspect the profitability dips rather below the $400/hr mark if you do.
The press release has me seriously confused. Greenpeace claims in their response
that nuclear fusion shares all the problems of fission, including producing nuclear waste. Until now, every discussion of fusion power that I have seen has suggested fusing hydrogen: just exactly how is this process going to produce the kind of elements that produce radioactivity and have half lives in the hundreds of years? I would have thought that producing wastes with atomic weights larger that helium would be absurdly difficult and far more trouble than it was worth.
what would be the expected lifetime of these sattelites (taking into account likely collisions with tiny and not so tiny debris) and what would be the total energy captured during that lifetime (measured in barrels of oil)
would that number outweigh the number of barrels of oil required to put them there in the first place?
I suspect that in order for orbital energy collection to be truly energy efficient, we need self sufficient orbital industries first (so as to reduce the energy cost of putting them there).
The fact that one does not wish the state or ones ISP to know ones secrets does not imply that those secrets are illicit in nature. A person could be transmitting commercially sensitive material which if released could be used by ones competitors, or one could simply be averse to having people know that one uses ordinary, legal porn.
It's a simple fact that People like privacy and place a non zero value on it. The phrase "what are you trying to hide" is the last refuge of the voyeur.
Who the fuck are you to say that you can seize my money to create a system I have no need for?
roads, water, electricity, all of these things are essential and I don't mind paying taxes for them. Wireless internet is unnecessary and if I want it, I'll pay someone to provide it to me.
There's a big difference between paying for something and having your money seized to pay for something that you may or may not use.
And just how do you suppose our enemies are going to perceive us as freinds if all this money is going to be spent to no benefit to them at all? Failing to take the next step in the logical chain is ridiculous.
There's just no way a country would pre-emptively attack us from space without an overwhelming chance of victory
This assumes that ones enemy operates from the same basic logical premises when evaluating courses of action. Given the fact that Iran already seems to be testing methods of delivering EMP weapons, the risks involved in failing to research and deploy antimissile technology are extreme. I would have thought that developing space weapons would be one of the most promising avenues of investigation
Or do you really think that the rest of the world would chip in and help if the US suddenly lost the ability to move foodstuffs from the farm to the supermarket?
Perhaps the US military should ignore the threat of space based or sub orbital weapons. It's not like that's their responsibility, is it?
The threat of EMP weapons from Iran or North Korea is years away with the most optimistic threat assessment possible. The time to weaponise space is yesterday.
For those of you who didn't bother to actually read the ordinance before spouting off an opinion, The SF ordinance applies to people actually campaigning and doesn't specifically mention blogging. It says that if you are running for SF political office you have to disclose your expenditures
Well, no. This comes down to the definition of an "electioneering communication". The ordinance (in the definitions section) defines an electioneering communication as one that
refers to a candidate in an election and
is distributed to >500 people during the 90 days prior to an election
(yes, I've significantly abbreviated this. A link to the ordnance is available in TFA)
Although There are certain exclusions, unless I missed it completely (I invite anyone to point out where it is and hope to god that someone can find it) there is no requirement that an electioneering communication be made by an actual candidate for office.
Although print, broadcast media and "other recognised news medium" are specifically excluded from coverage by the ordinance, this leaves it up to the judiciary to decide if a blog is "recognised news medium". Hardly an ideal situation for the poor sucker who is the first to be tried for failure to register.
I've always thought that having an automatic sunset on every scrap of legislation: if it passes by 50% or more, have a 2 year sunset. If it passes by 66% or more have a 4 year sunset. And so on. Require unanimity in order for legislation to become permanent.
That'd keep the little bastards busy and the endless expansion of legislation would become a burden upon the government. If things got too out of hand, legislation would start disappearing because the government didn't have time to make sure it got voted on again.
Suppose the cops want to know what is in encrypted files on a suspects computer: If they can get a warrant to install a keylogger on the suspects computer (without informing said suspect) 10 days later when they show up at the door with a warrant to seize all electronic hardware (ala Steve Jackson Games) All they have to do is pluck the passphrase for the encrypted files out of the keylogger and bobs yer uncle. (Assuming the suspect used the passphrase during the intervening days). No internet access required. Assuming the cops can get physical access to the machine without the suspect being aware of it, it works just fine
which raises all sorts of questions about overt and covert physical security... keeping computers locked up in a strongroom would do it, as would having telltales which would alert the suspect to the fact that their computers security has been compromised
I don't know, that's not what I was saying (my own position is closer to yours on this, as a libertarian, I wonder what business the government has recognising heterosexual marriage in the first place)
When you ask someone why they "feel so threatened" by X, most people take that to be an insult. An implication that their objections are irrational, based upon feelings, usually homophobia and it carries with it the smarmily irritating insinuation that the person to whom the question is directed is in fact homosexual themselves.
"
What I, as a Canadian, can't understand, is why?"
Nor do you particularly want to. You'd rather insult people who disagree with you.
"
What is so amazingly threatening about homosexual marriages?"
See what I mean? If you want a serious answer to a question, it is monumentally stupid to phrase the question in such a way as to insult the person you are querying. Since liberals pride themselves on their intelligence, I have to assume that you are not doing this out of monumental stupidity, rather, you simply don't want a serious answer.
Americas closest and strongest ally, britain, was right there with them. It's difficult to understand by what measure France or Germany could be considered Americas closest and strongest allies.
But perhaps you have a point: when 52% of your fellow citizens pointedly reject your opinion, perhaps there's a reason to pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
He'd have a coronary when he discovers what's in the "song of solomon" stage
I'm a programmer, not something else instead. I don't particularly care if haberdashers make more money because the employment prospects and income potential is increased because someone steals software. I care that my own emplyment prospects and income potential are reduced as a result.
While both the BSA and IDC might well have a conflict of interest with regard to the surveys outcome, no secret has been made of their methodology and the conclusions are, IMO hardly controversial.
The notion that copyright infringement damages the prospects of companies that write software and therefore the employment prospects of programmers (oops, there's my conflict of interest) strikes me as perfectly reasonable. This does not, of course prevent me from being paying close and paranoid attention to the methods of enforcement advocated by the BSA.
That people abuse the presense of a built in option does not disqualify that option from occasionally being of critical importance.
For this reason it's considerably more likely on a bike than in a car that the response to a given situation might be "go faster". Of course, this doesn't mean that it's actually likely. When someone tries to use my lane, my response is usually slow down (or, if I'm in a really bad mood, kick the f#*&ers door). However, if there's someone tailgating me, I'll usually speed up instead.
In any case, removing options from the person in control of heavy machinery when that option might be useful in an emergency, regardless of how unlikely it is that that option is necessary, hardly strikes me as wise policy.
(I've really got to cut down on my use of parenthetical remarks.)
Unfortunately, yes, simply make being issued an airline ticket conditional upon completing an electronic form: "billgates@microsoft.com is not a valid response, please amend form and resubmit."
chances are you can still get around large chunks of it, but if you can be required to submit some form of valid ID before commencing filling the form in, there are lots of ways to filter out invalid responses (particularly in combination with federal databases). I suspect you're going to get tired of filling the form in over and over again before the filters get tired of bouncing your submission.
If you beleive anything that feminists (or their paid flunkies) tell you about men, I have a bridge in Sydney I'd like to sell you.
You haven't calculated the time taken to actually write the book into the calculation. I suspect the profitability dips rather below the $400/hr mark if you do.
The press release has me seriously confused. Greenpeace claims in their response that nuclear fusion shares all the problems of fission, including producing nuclear waste. Until now, every discussion of fusion power that I have seen has suggested fusing hydrogen: just exactly how is this process going to produce the kind of elements that produce radioactivity and have half lives in the hundreds of years? I would have thought that producing wastes with atomic weights larger that helium would be absurdly difficult and far more trouble than it was worth.
would that number outweigh the number of barrels of oil required to put them there in the first place?
I suspect that in order for orbital energy collection to be truly energy efficient, we need self sufficient orbital industries first (so as to reduce the energy cost of putting them there).
It's a simple fact that People like privacy and place a non zero value on it. The phrase "what are you trying to hide" is the last refuge of the voyeur.
They might not confiscate your car because they added a new bus route, but they do confiscate your money because they added muni wireless.
roads, water, electricity, all of these things are essential and I don't mind paying taxes for them. Wireless internet is unnecessary and if I want it, I'll pay someone to provide it to me.
There's a big difference between paying for something and having your money seized to pay for something that you may or may not use.
And just how do you suppose our enemies are going to perceive us as freinds if all this money is going to be spent to no benefit to them at all? Failing to take the next step in the logical chain is ridiculous.
This assumes that ones enemy operates from the same basic logical premises when evaluating courses of action. Given the fact that Iran already seems to be testing methods of delivering EMP weapons, the risks involved in failing to research and deploy antimissile technology are extreme. I would have thought that developing space weapons would be one of the most promising avenues of investigation
Or do you really think that the rest of the world would chip in and help if the US suddenly lost the ability to move foodstuffs from the farm to the supermarket?
Perhaps the US military should ignore the threat of space based or sub orbital weapons. It's not like that's their responsibility, is it?
The threat of EMP weapons from Iran or North Korea is years away with the most optimistic threat assessment possible. The time to weaponise space is yesterday.
somehow, I think there's a hole in that logic somewhere
refers to a candidate in an election and
is distributed to >500 people during the 90 days prior to an election
(yes, I've significantly abbreviated this. A link to the ordnance is available in TFA)
Although There are certain exclusions, unless I missed it completely (I invite anyone to point out where it is and hope to god that someone can find it) there is no requirement that an electioneering communication be made by an actual candidate for office.
Although print, broadcast media and "other recognised news medium" are specifically excluded from coverage by the ordinance, this leaves it up to the judiciary to decide if a blog is "recognised news medium". Hardly an ideal situation for the poor sucker who is the first to be tried for failure to register.
LOL! you can't be serious!?!? lack of respect is not a two way street here, it's a 6 lane divided highway.
That'd keep the little bastards busy and the endless expansion of legislation would become a burden upon the government. If things got too out of hand, legislation would start disappearing because the government didn't have time to make sure it got voted on again.
which raises all sorts of questions about overt and covert physical security... keeping computers locked up in a strongroom would do it, as would having telltales which would alert the suspect to the fact that their computers security has been compromised
[shrugs] freinds disagree all the time. It is neither the end of the world nor any indication that the one who is not a socialist must be wrong.
When you ask someone why they "feel so threatened" by X, most people take that to be an insult. An implication that their objections are irrational, based upon feelings, usually homophobia and it carries with it the smarmily irritating insinuation that the person to whom the question is directed is in fact homosexual themselves.
Nor do you particularly want to. You'd rather insult people who disagree with you.
See what I mean? If you want a serious answer to a question, it is monumentally stupid to phrase the question in such a way as to insult the person you are querying. Since liberals pride themselves on their intelligence, I have to assume that you are not doing this out of monumental stupidity, rather, you simply don't want a serious answer.
Americas closest and strongest ally, britain, was right there with them. It's difficult to understand by what measure France or Germany could be considered Americas closest and strongest allies. But perhaps you have a point: when 52% of your fellow citizens pointedly reject your opinion, perhaps there's a reason to pay attention.