a lot depends on what exactly you mean by logging.
He was clearly responding to the parent post, which explicitly listed "logging" and "deforestation" as two separate items, implying that logging itself was an evil separate and apart from any deforestation that might result. Apparently, this is supposed to be self-evident or something, but I don't understand it.
No-one ever questioned why we need more and more energy.
Fundamentally, it is because of human desire for progress. Virtually all progress involves decreasing local entropy for some purpose, whether it is to manufacture a product or send an ordered byte stream. All reductions of local entropy - that is, movement away from thermodynamic equilibrium, require an expenditure of energy. Thus progress - indeed, all of human civilization - I guess even all of life - requires energy input. We require more because we desire to decrease our local entropy.
And energy efficient, because the datacenter can heat your human housing and work quarters. Maybe you made this comment as a joke, but...it seems like it would be an ideal location for massive computing operations.
Our approach is perfectly logical. We use modern measurements for tasks of modernity (engineering, science, research, military) but archaic measurements for tasks which are not "cutting edge" (cooking, travelling, shopping, gossiping).
Of course, my personal answer to your quesion is, when the modern world abandons base-10 numerology.
However, knowing how I was in High School, if I would have been told I had free speech, I probably would have taken advantage of it on occasion, and hid behind that fact
You can't "hide behind" free speech. The right to free speech is not a right not to suffer consequences for your speech. It is simply a right against the government from having your speech forcibly surpressed. In point of fact, public school students do in fact have free speech rights in school (seeTinker v. Des Moine), subject to reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions just like everybody else.
It's like driving to the mall, and telling the store owner they need to pay you 35 cents per mile.
I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home.
That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel ideal, and might be workable.
I have rarely seen more incorrect things in one post.
1. Conservatives are for states rights.
No, they are for limited government, especially federal government. Complaining that one government is too powerful does not mean they wish another government to be more powerful. States always had the right to broad discretion anyways; that's not really what this case was about. Government does not have to be big to guarantee property rights.
The Neo-Cons welcome this as it opens up business.
What "neo-cons?" Who? Name names, please. The only people I've seen embracing it so far are big-government liberals who perceived the case as an attack on the power of the federal government to regulate land use.
3. The Democrats are appalled because like the conservatives this is not what they wanted. However, because 2 of the justices happen to be nominiated by Dems it is now the Liberals fault for this happening.
I guess I won't argue with this.
This is simply beyond the scope of the constitution and probably should be left to the local government to pass it's own laws. The four that voted against were most likely voting on their personal feelings and those legislating from the bench. Which is what they should not be doing.
This is beyond the scope of the Consitution? The Constitution is our fundamental governing document. No government should be beyond its scope! Your points about the opportunities that can be brought in to poor, starving local governments is by your own logic irrelevant, since this "point does not matter because the decision should be in line with constitution."
And what about that Constitution? You accuse the dissenters of ruling based on personal feeling? What about the words in the Constitution, which specifically require that takings be for "public use"? PUBLIC. USE. What is so difficult to understand about those words? If they don't "really" mean that it has to be for public use, then why were they written?
Concur! I didn't have any trouble using the outlining features, and I particularly liked the audio recording functionality. If you type notes as you record the audio, then when you play the audio back, your notes are highlighted at the same time relative to the audio track that you typed them. Really, really handy.
It's really too bad it only seems to be available with the purchase of Tablet PC, though.
In your own posting, read carefully, the word "KNOWINGLY" is used repeadedly. This is the same as intent.
No. NO. It is not the same. "Intent" would mean that you did it on purpose. "Knowing" just means you have awareness. For example, suppose someone sends you a file which is supposed to be a picture of Britney Spears and it turns out to be child porn. You save the file on your computer and then open it. You realize as soon as you open it that it is illegal. Obviously, your possession at this point is not intentional - it was not your intent to possess child porn. But it is knowing, because you have awareness, and now you are obligated to do something about it, e.g., delete the file.
I should have pointed out in my post above that this is federal criminal law. Therefore, even if other states only criminalized possession of minors defined by a younger age, the possessor would still be subject to penalties under federal jurisdiction. I don't know offhand if any states are more strict as to age, but they could be if they wanted to, I suppose.
Yes, this term is well defined in Title 18, Section 2256 of the U.S. Code.
For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
(1) ''minor'' means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) ''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
any person;
(3) ''producing'' means producing, directing, manufacturing,
issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) ''organization'' means a person other than an individual;
(5) ''visual depiction'' includes undeveloped film and
videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic
means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6) ''computer'' has the meaning given that term in section
1030 of this title;
(7) ''custody or control'' includes temporary supervision over
or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally
obtained;
(8) ''child pornography'' means any visual depiction, including
any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or
computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by
electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit
conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or
modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in
sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented,
described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the
impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(9) ''identifiable minor'' -
(A) means a person -
(i)(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was
created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting,
or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the
person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing
characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other
recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual
identity of the identifiable minor.
Next they will get you for images that you deleted, but the OS did not eliminate completely from your hard drive.
The federal law actually explicitly provides a defense if you take immediate "reasonable" steps to destroy the offending material upon becoming aware of it, or turn it over to law enforcement. So under the current federal law, as long as you do something "reasonable" (and I would think that most juries would accept simply deleting a file to be "reasonable") to delete the porn, you ought to be okay.
No, that is incorrect. They only must show knowledge of possession, not intent. 18 USC 2252A (excerpted):
(a) Any person who -
(5) either -
(A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or on any land or building owned by, leased
to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the United
States Government, or in the Indian country (as defined in
section 1151), knowingly possesses any book, magazine,
periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other
material that contains an image of child pornography; or
(B) knowingly possesses any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains
an image of child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means,
including by computer, or that was produced using materials
that have been mailed, or shipped or transported in interstate
or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
Interestingly, the statute explicitly provides an affirmative defense once the possession becomes knowingly:
(d) Affirmative Defense. - It shall be an affirmative defense to
a charge of violating subsection (a)(5) that the defendant -
(1) possessed less than three images of child pornography; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or
allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to
access any image or copy thereof -
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and
afforded that agency access to each such image.
The way I read that, if you immediately take "reasonable" (note does not have to be absoultely effective) steps to destroy any images you receive as soon as you become aware of them, this is an affirmative defense. If you let them sit around on your hard drive without even trying to delete them, and you knew about them, then you have a problem.
They're not just camera effects. The effects are more meant to mimic the way your eyes are affected by changes in light, caused by pupil dilation and glare.
wouldn't it be faster to omit the calculable chunks and have everyone download the smaller file faster?
Of course, but the problem that this solves is when you don't have 100% of the pieces of the smaller file (or the pieces are available but bottlenecked.) You download more data, but it doesn't matter which pieces you get as long as you get most of them. So say there's a bottleneck on a particular piece of a download. Get enough of the other pieces, and you can reconstruct the missing ones, avoid the bottleneck, and then share your reconstructed pieces, further easing the bottleneck. It is a good idea.
Except it won't be torrenting because it won't use BitTorrent. It's too cumbersome to say "Avalanching" though. I propose the short form "lanching" or "lanches."
Not so fast. You can also uninstall WMP quite easily (via the Add/Remove Programs control panel.) The argument here seems to be that users are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not. Isn't it the case, then, that OSX users are forced to pay for these bundled applications, whether they want to use them or some other free/commercial product? Your answer to that may be, "the alternative is Windows." But couldn't Microsoft make the same argument? "Don't like our bundled options? The alternative is Apple."What has Microsoft done to stop people from using Apple products?
Slashdot Mirror
He was clearly responding to the parent post, which explicitly listed "logging" and "deforestation" as two separate items, implying that logging itself was an evil separate and apart from any deforestation that might result. Apparently, this is supposed to be self-evident or something, but I don't understand it.
I'm much more concerned about a resonance cascade scenario.
Fundamentally, it is because of human desire for progress. Virtually all progress involves decreasing local entropy for some purpose, whether it is to manufacture a product or send an ordered byte stream. All reductions of local entropy - that is, movement away from thermodynamic equilibrium, require an expenditure of energy. Thus progress - indeed, all of human civilization - I guess even all of life - requires energy input. We require more because we desire to decrease our local entropy.
Well, PDF is "open" in the same sense that the Office 12 schemas are open. That is to say, they are patent encumbered, but freely licensed.
PDF is proprietary. It is owned by Adobe and covered by no less than eight patents.
What are you talking about?!? How would space be a good location for computers at all?
And energy efficient, because the datacenter can heat your human housing and work quarters. Maybe you made this comment as a joke, but...it seems like it would be an ideal location for massive computing operations.
What are you talking about? He didn't even mention Sheepshead.
Of course, my personal answer to your quesion is, when the modern world abandons base-10 numerology.
You can't "hide behind" free speech. The right to free speech is not a right not to suffer consequences for your speech. It is simply a right against the government from having your speech forcibly surpressed. In point of fact, public school students do in fact have free speech rights in school (see Tinker v. Des Moine), subject to reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions just like everybody else.
I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home.
That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel ideal, and might be workable.
1. Conservatives are for states rights.
No, they are for limited government, especially federal government. Complaining that one government is too powerful does not mean they wish another government to be more powerful. States always had the right to broad discretion anyways; that's not really what this case was about. Government does not have to be big to guarantee property rights.
The Neo-Cons welcome this as it opens up business.
What "neo-cons?" Who? Name names, please. The only people I've seen embracing it so far are big-government liberals who perceived the case as an attack on the power of the federal government to regulate land use.
3. The Democrats are appalled because like the conservatives this is not what they wanted. However, because 2 of the justices happen to be nominiated by Dems it is now the Liberals fault for this happening.
I guess I won't argue with this.
This is simply beyond the scope of the constitution and probably should be left to the local government to pass it's own laws. The four that voted against were most likely voting on their personal feelings and those legislating from the bench. Which is what they should not be doing.
This is beyond the scope of the Consitution? The Constitution is our fundamental governing document. No government should be beyond its scope! Your points about the opportunities that can be brought in to poor, starving local governments is by your own logic irrelevant, since this "point does not matter because the decision should be in line with constitution."
And what about that Constitution? You accuse the dissenters of ruling based on personal feeling? What about the words in the Constitution, which specifically require that takings be for "public use"? PUBLIC. USE. What is so difficult to understand about those words? If they don't "really" mean that it has to be for public use, then why were they written?
It's really too bad it only seems to be available with the purchase of Tablet PC, though.
I don't understand.
Avalon?
No. NO. It is not the same. "Intent" would mean that you did it on purpose. "Knowing" just means you have awareness. For example, suppose someone sends you a file which is supposed to be a picture of Britney Spears and it turns out to be child porn. You save the file on your computer and then open it. You realize as soon as you open it that it is illegal. Obviously, your possession at this point is not intentional - it was not your intent to possess child porn. But it is knowing, because you have awareness, and now you are obligated to do something about it, e.g., delete the file.
That would certainly be my interpretation. But it becomes "knowing" as soon as you open the file and see what it is.
I should have pointed out in my post above that this is federal criminal law. Therefore, even if other states only criminalized possession of minors defined by a younger age, the possessor would still be subject to penalties under federal jurisdiction. I don't know offhand if any states are more strict as to age, but they could be if they wanted to, I suppose.
The federal law actually explicitly provides a defense if you take immediate "reasonable" steps to destroy the offending material upon becoming aware of it, or turn it over to law enforcement. So under the current federal law, as long as you do something "reasonable" (and I would think that most juries would accept simply deleting a file to be "reasonable") to delete the porn, you ought to be okay.
Interestingly, the statute explicitly provides an affirmative defense once the possession becomes knowingly:
The way I read that, if you immediately take "reasonable" (note does not have to be absoultely effective) steps to destroy any images you receive as soon as you become aware of them, this is an affirmative defense. If you let them sit around on your hard drive without even trying to delete them, and you knew about them, then you have a problem.They're not just camera effects. The effects are more meant to mimic the way your eyes are affected by changes in light, caused by pupil dilation and glare.
Of course, but the problem that this solves is when you don't have 100% of the pieces of the smaller file (or the pieces are available but bottlenecked.) You download more data, but it doesn't matter which pieces you get as long as you get most of them. So say there's a bottleneck on a particular piece of a download. Get enough of the other pieces, and you can reconstruct the missing ones, avoid the bottleneck, and then share your reconstructed pieces, further easing the bottleneck. It is a good idea.
Except it won't be torrenting because it won't use BitTorrent. It's too cumbersome to say "Avalanching" though. I propose the short form "lanching" or "lanches."
Not so fast. You can also uninstall WMP quite easily (via the Add/Remove Programs control panel.) The argument here seems to be that users are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not. Isn't it the case, then, that OSX users are forced to pay for these bundled applications, whether they want to use them or some other free/commercial product? Your answer to that may be, "the alternative is Windows." But couldn't Microsoft make the same argument? "Don't like our bundled options? The alternative is Apple."What has Microsoft done to stop people from using Apple products?