You could just as easily say: Prison officials are in charge of prison stuff, which may or may not involve measures to prevent rape, but usually doesn't. It makes just as much sense as your last sentence.
K. That implies that they don't have the moral obligation to protect prisoners from that level of harm. If that's the case, would it not be more economical to simply put all prisoners on islands with the means to grow food, and shoot anyone who tries to leave before their time is up? That's a similar level of duty of care to what a justified disinterest in prison rape implies.
In this supposedly more enlightened age, where we generally disapprove of practices such as marooning, these things are in fact not tolerated. We recognize that prisoners have certain basic rights, and I think the right not to be raped is one of them. Prison officials have chosen to take responsibility for that, along with their responsibilities to the rest of us such as keeping prisoners locked up.
As to an agenda, it shouldn't stop anyone looking at the factual basis for the argument, facts which you have not rejected but rather attempted to excuse.
There is a difference. Prison officials are (omfg) in charge of prisons and their inhabitants. UN officials are in charge of UN stuff, which may or may not involve military action, but usually doesn't.
Yes, it has to be a dictatorship, presumably because it's socialist. Never mind the whole thing with elections, and that the people who tried a coup there a while ago were on the opposite end of the political spectrum. You don't happen to write for an American newspaper, do you?
Having said that, it's not inconceivable they're trying to get bargaining power with Microsoft, but I find it more likely that they really are committed to saving money and sticking two fingers up to the US (which hates them).
Even if - as is likely - 2004 MN4 is not on course for Earth, the probability of impact will increase with each observation that does not exclude it hitting entirely, as the region of possible places it can be shrinks.
No, it really does have a 1.6% chance of hitting, given current knowledge. Whether it will or not is already determined, but when we look (which will hopefully happen again sometime later today) there's a very significant chance that this won't go away.
Excuse me. This is not China. This is a public forum, similar to a town hall, or something of that nature. Additionally, while there is some possibility of you being a helpful lawyer, the possibility of you being someone who can't help but care about business that is very definitely someone else's is greater, in my reckoning.
But in answer to your question: nothing would come of it, except a possible quick comment deletion.
Tools like this are good for people who haven't done many codes before. If you're a keen amateur cryptographer, and have any programming experience, most likely you'll end up writing a few routines yourself before long.
Re:"My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-)
on
Nuclear Batteries
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Google for thermeonics. Two entires.
Spell it right - thermionics. You get over 5K. And if you add up the results for googling different sub-fields I bet you get way more.
I mean that they'll break into the manufacturers offices and bribe staff etc. to get these keys, not that they'll retrieve them from bits of hardware they buy (because they're not there).
China's intelligence agencies can retrieve the private keys used by software and hardware they need. They can then publish these keys and cause massive economic disruption, or use them to create versions of said programs and hardware that own the boxes using them. This can be used against any company and made indetectible.
No, being incapable of providing the key is a valid defence. Skype makes it easy to prove that you don't have the key, so no one can be imprisoned for using it.
On reflection, I could have phrased that a lot better. I simply meant to say that existing information is not scarce. I have a better idea as to how the starving musicians can be fed that does not depend on artificial restriction, as well:
A group can set an amount of money to be publically raised to produce their next album, and once it has been collected, record and release it to the public (It can of course be held in escrow until they do). In a free market, they should get the amount of money their work is worth.
Obviously, if you were Jonny Nobody, you wouldn't get much. But quite possibly more than for a demo tape. And you, as the artist, retain control as you get popular.
What can be done with copyright that can't be done this way?
There is a scarcity of money (this is an intrinsic property it possesses). There is a scarcity of food (I simply mean that supply is restricted). Not so information. Information can be replicated with extremely low cost. Thus, the bits become less important than what you do with them. Conceivably, genetic modification will allow too-cheap-to-meter food. Will its tiny cost of manufacture translate to similar savings in your pocket? No, because you'll pay to make use of the bits in its genetic code. Does this strike you as a strangely artificial state of affairs, or is it just me?
Copyright creates value, and thus money, by fiat. The 'losses' recorded by music industry people are losses of a privilege that is not founded on solid ground. Money is a convenient representation of possession of a scarcity. It is having what others do not that gives it its utility. There is no reason for one to have bits and the other not to. There is no reason for one to have more money than the other because of this.
I agree, the telephone part is interesting, but so is the AIM and IRC part. If the game character enters into an agreement with another game character to do an in-game transaction, that falls under role-playing, which is what lots of games are about. If the man behind the game character (the one with the putative daughter and wife) enters into an agreement with other real telephone owning people, that's different - it's a contract, providing that the goods to be exchanged have value.
Slashdot Mirror
K. That implies that they don't have the moral obligation to protect prisoners from that level of harm. If that's the case, would it not be more economical to simply put all prisoners on islands with the means to grow food, and shoot anyone who tries to leave before their time is up? That's a similar level of duty of care to what a justified disinterest in prison rape implies.
In this supposedly more enlightened age, where we generally disapprove of practices such as marooning, these things are in fact not tolerated. We recognize that prisoners have certain basic rights, and I think the right not to be raped is one of them. Prison officials have chosen to take responsibility for that, along with their responsibilities to the rest of us such as keeping prisoners locked up.
As to an agenda, it shouldn't stop anyone looking at the factual basis for the argument, facts which you have not rejected but rather attempted to excuse.
There is a difference. Prison officials are (omfg) in charge of prisons and their inhabitants. UN officials are in charge of UN stuff, which may or may not involve military action, but usually doesn't.
Slashpedia!
Having said that, it's not inconceivable they're trying to get bargaining power with Microsoft, but I find it more likely that they really are committed to saving money and sticking two fingers up to the US (which hates them).
Bollocks. You just fed the percentage-to-fraction converter with a higher number.
Even if - as is likely - 2004 MN4 is not on course for Earth, the probability of impact will increase with each observation that does not exclude it hitting entirely, as the region of possible places it can be shrinks.
No, it really does have a 1.6% chance of hitting, given current knowledge. Whether it will or not is already determined, but when we look (which will hopefully happen again sometime later today) there's a very significant chance that this won't go away.
Maybe it's a theme - the worms of tomorrow will do what the script kiddies of today do.
But in answer to your question: nothing would come of it, except a possible quick comment deletion.
(shakes head)
Well, seeing as we're not discussing Slashdot, I fail to see the connection between its ownership and the non-topicality of non-US talk.
Tools like this are good for people who haven't done many codes before. If you're a keen amateur cryptographer, and have any programming experience, most likely you'll end up writing a few routines yourself before long.
Alternatively, http://www.malfunction.org/fulifier/nph-fulify.cgi ?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Farticle.pl%3Fs id%3D04%2F09%2F18%2F2143242%26tid%3D128%26tid%3D20 1%26tid%3D1
I mean that they'll break into the manufacturers offices and bribe staff etc. to get these keys, not that they'll retrieve them from bits of hardware they buy (because they're not there).
China's intelligence agencies can retrieve the private keys used by software and hardware they need. They can then publish these keys and cause massive economic disruption, or use them to create versions of said programs and hardware that own the boxes using them. This can be used against any company and made indetectible.
Sexy... ARGGGGHHHHH
You can make metals strong - but not that strong. A strength of 65 to 120 gigapascals is needed.
No, being incapable of providing the key is a valid defence. Skype makes it easy to prove that you don't have the key, so no one can be imprisoned for using it.
On reflection, I could have phrased that a lot better. I simply meant to say that existing information is not scarce. I have a better idea as to how the starving musicians can be fed that does not depend on artificial restriction, as well:
A group can set an amount of money to be publically raised to produce their next album, and once it has been collected, record and release it to the public (It can of course be held in escrow until they do). In a free market, they should get the amount of money their work is worth.
Obviously, if you were Jonny Nobody, you wouldn't get much. But quite possibly more than for a demo tape. And you, as the artist, retain control as you get popular.
What can be done with copyright that can't be done this way?
Copyright creates value, and thus money, by fiat. The 'losses' recorded by music industry people are losses of a privilege that is not founded on solid ground. Money is a convenient representation of possession of a scarcity. It is having what others do not that gives it its utility. There is no reason for one to have bits and the other not to. There is no reason for one to have more money than the other because of this.
Why are Microsoft trying to sell a demo?
Fair enough, but when you want to look back, you'll look at the whole screen.
I agree, the telephone part is interesting, but so is the AIM and IRC part. If the game character enters into an agreement with another game character to do an in-game transaction, that falls under role-playing, which is what lots of games are about. If the man behind the game character (the one with the putative daughter and wife) enters into an agreement with other real telephone owning people, that's different - it's a contract, providing that the goods to be exchanged have value.