Altering the OS of your school provided laptop is probably not illegal, depending on what exactly you do. Unless you're unleashing a virus or destroying hardware, I really doubt anything will stick. I'm guessing this is the kind of thing the ACLU would help you with if you actually got in trouble.
Exactly. Unless you actually stole/damaged things--they'd be hard-pressed actually go through the trouble of ruining your life. It's this very fact that saved me back in the day.
Back when I was a senior in highschool (Class of '02), there was a computer-geek rebellion which I, by some strange twist of fate, found myself leading. It all started when the county bought some really nice computers for the fiber optic computer lab. Some of us got the bright idea to bring in cracked copies of Quake 2, Tribes 2, Unreal Tournament, and a bunch of other games to play during lulls in the classes. Most of the teachers didn't care. In fact, one of them even used "game time" as an incentive to get his lackadaisical senior students to do their assignments--with a lot of success I might add.
Then one of the hard-nosed teachers found out and made a habit of deleting the games. Of course, this was easily overcome by making copies of the game files locally and adding a few ifexist lines to the autoexec.bat of every machine to recreate the game should it be deleted. This worked for awhile until the county computer techs were called in to "See what was wrong."
Hoping to keep games off the computers, the county bought Clean Slate, a program used to lock down pre-XP computers. On the surface, the program seemed pretty tough. *All* changes/files created were removed every time the computer was restarted and only authorized programs were allowed to run. Of course, the BIOS was set as HD first to prevent bootdisking. The program was a huge hassle to both students and teachers alike.
This was first overcome by: 1) corrupting/resetting the BIOS 2)bootdisking in 3) REMing out the relevant lines in the autoexec and windows startup files. This entire process took approximately 20 seconds once you got good at it. And we did get good at it--there were over 300 computers in the school and every computer was unlocked (oftentimes the same day it was locked down). Unlocked computers were set with a blue background to indicate that they were fixed.
Eventually we wised up and just installed a keylogger on one of the computers scheduled to be locked down. Sure enough, you had to type in the password every time you installed the software. With the password (which worked throughout the school), many people actually used Clean Slate to protect the games from being deleted--which was just beautiful.
Figuring out what we were doing, they started to Norton Ghost the computers so that a direct install and password entry was not required. They also correctly configured Clean Slate so the BIOS couldn't be so easily corrupted. This too was eventually circumvented when we found out that Clean Slate is unable to apply its file protections to Novell Netware shared drives. If worse came to worse, and you had enough alone-time with the computer, you could always remove the case and reset the BIOS password with the pin.
Throughout this whole process, there was one rule among those involved: DO NOT DAMAGE THE COMPUTERS. Do not delete the Clean Slate files--only disable them. Do not put porn, ect. on the computers.
This turned out to be our saving grace. Eventually the computer technicians got fed up with our school. The network usage for our school was something like 30 times other schools in the county. Of course, all of this was occurring when the county was assuring the state that its computers would be ready for the new computer-based Standard of Learning (SOLs) tests. Bad timing. Entire meetings of the county school board were apparently based upon the
From what I can tell, the "war on terror" is all about scaring the shit out of law abiding citizens of countries like the US and UK whilest restricting their rights. Oh and invading other sovereign states on the grounds that they have weapons of mass destruction...
Sovereign states? Surely you don't believe pre-war Afghanistan and Iraq to be sovereign states. What kind of sovereignty is there in a oligarchy (in the guise of a theocracy) and a dictatorship?
...which [the lack of WMDs in Iraq] is what the intelligence services had been suggesting all along.
Despite the fact that some illegal weapons were found and destroyed (medium-ranged missiles), your point is absurd even with regard to "real" WMDs. Both German and UK intelligence services believed Iraq had WMDs. The collective intelligence of states at the U.N. believed it when they voted on referendum 1440. The only time doubts even began to arise occurred when the time for action drew near and the proverbial lines in the sand were beginning to be drawn.
You can argue that the intelligence was bad because of serious structural and procedural problems at both domestic and international intelligence services. I'll agree with you. But sitting here claiming that intelligence never indicated the presence of any WMDs is completely bunk.
I'm not advocating the proliferation of nuclear weapons - I'm saying that before the US tells a country that they can't develop nukes, maybe the US should set an example and decomission their own...
This issue has nothing to do with fairness. I'd like to live in this idealistic paradise you seem to be in--it seems really nice. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like this. The approach you describe is like me trying to start a new wave of socialism simply by giving away all my possessions. It doesn't work that way.
You seem to be of the notion that everyone thinks defensively such as yourself. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Like it or not (I personally don't), international stability depends in part upon the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) even now in the post-Cold War era. Expecting North Korea, for example, to not develop and use nuclear weapons simply because its enemies don't have them only works if the DPRK is concerned solely with defense, which they most certainly are not. Removing the threat of nuclear retaliation only makes the option of developing and using nuclear weapons aggressively that much more viable.
The goal shouldn't be to remove all nuclear weapons technology wherever it exists. If there's anything the P2P battles (or any other instance in which groups have tried to stop the inevitable march of technological progress) have taught us anything it's that: hiding or preventing people from getting access completely to a technology for an indefinite amount of time is impossible. Preventing certain groups, however, from obtaining the technology is well within our power. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to unstable or rogue nations is a beneficial, pragmatic goal. Perhaps it's not fair, but lives and international stability depend upon it.
I think you can safely say that the US has killed more people with nukes than Iraq...
...because Iraq never obtained any nuclear weapons. Of course, you take this as meaning that, if they did, they wouldn't have used them, but that thought is just patently untrue and flies in the face of Saddam's brutal history of aggressively using chemical weapons against his own people and Iranians. Which, brings us back to the whole perceived impetus (Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in) for the war in Iraq to begin with.
I think many countries are more in need of weapons to defend themselves against an attack by the US than the US is in need of weapons to defend themselves.
Are you living under a rock or something? The war on terror has less to do with legitimate nation-states obtaining nuclear weapons (See: India and Pakistan) and more to do with rogue nations and terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Simply allowing unfettered proliferation of nuclear weapons to fanatics unaccountable to their own people would be a bad--if not lethal--situation for everyone in the world.
Why is it considered bad for a warmongering dictator (Saddam) to have weapons of mass destruction whilest it's ok for a warmongering dictator (Bush) to have weapons of mass destruction?
I forgot--perhaps you can refresh my memory: How many nukes did we use in the most recent Iraq war?
Japanese soldiers out of supplies and hope for victory often ran off nearby cliffs and even, in some cases, resorted to cannibalism rather than surrender.
For the Japanese, submitting in battle was the worst humiliation possible. Only the realistic prospect of utter annihilation would (and did) convince them to surrender.
What a waste of human life.
Agreed. Unfortunately, war often confronts us with difficult situations that require less than ideal actions.
But since they weren't American, I guess it doesn't count, right? Kinda like all those Iraqis.
Which Iraqis? The ones Saddam killed on a regular basis? Funny how they seem to be forgotten in all of the vitriolic grandstanding from the far left.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it ironic that the faction which champions ideals of tolerance and a sophisticated worldview seems to have this notion that the United States holds a monopoly on the evil of the world? That *if only* the US didn't exist, some magical utopia would appear? It almost makes the evangelical far right look intelligent--which is a difficult task indeed.
I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost. [emphasis mine]
99.9%? Bullshit. Show me your source for that figure, or did you just make it up off the top of your head like the rest of your sweeping statements?
Modern pharmaceutical companies spend more in advertising than they do on research and development. For most companies their advertising costs are at least twice their research and development costs; for some, it's nearly quadruple.
Don't believe it? Open your eyes. Turn on your television. Open a magazine. Or better yet, read the actual figures. We're in the middle of a non-stop advertising blitz. And that's just for the public! Pharmaceutical reps spend ridiculous amounts on comping doctors and hospitals in order to ensure sales--do you really think you can just wave your hand and make those very significant costs go away?
-Grym
Re:Assuming it's true...
on
HD-Less PS3?
·
· Score: 1
It really means one thing. Sony isn't nearly as serious about their online plan as they should be, and bye-bye to content download as a standard option on the PS3.
And I say good riddance! The only reason publishers are pushing for content downloads is so they can stick you with "micropayments" later. example: "Want that uber weapon you just got killed by? Buy it for only 50 cents!"
Many marketing people see this as the holy grail in business models. It plays off the addictive nature of gamers to want to "be the best." Moreover, each price is so small that people are likely to impulse buy--just like they do with the candy bars in the checkout line. Best of all, you don't need to do any extra work--simply hold back some content and release it later... for a fee, of course.
Thanks but no thanks. Maybe it's just me but I'd rather not be nickeled and dimed for every little feature that should already have been present.
I do not see the Muslim world condemning terrorism at all. Stop watching Fox News and try actually speaking to some Muslims.
"God told me to do it" is not a valid excuse. It works for Bush.
They should have fired the Imam... Which "they" do you mean?
Ahh yes, because the United States has a monopoly on all the evil of the world, with Fox News and George Bush being the chief sources. You know, this type of world-view would be comical were it not for its disturbingly marked prevalence.
People who refuse to admit that Islam is (for whatever reason or another; "interpretation," S.E.S. of most believers, ect.) the most intolerant and aggressive major religion of the modern world are either ignorant of the facts or burying their heads in the sand.
...That gives us a grand total of 160,000 nukes, or about 10% of the force of the dinosaur killer.
I'm not going to dispute your larger claim that the GP's figure is incorrect (in all likelihood, it is).
However, I think that it is still possible to eliminate all life on earth by the simultaneous detonation of all the world's nuclear weapons. Why? The fallout; the radiation.
Not only would you be asking organisms to survive the dust and debris in the atmosphere, blocking out the sun for years. (Which is really what hurt the ecosystem.) But the prevalence of radiation would be the final blow, making life unsustainable.
As with all of these discussions, what is life? Is "life" a few bacterial colonies at the bottom of the ocean? If so, you're right, "life," in the most absolute sense, might survive, but any significant and meaningful presence would be, in my opinion, out of the question.
Another possible solution is to put a GPS or some other sort of tracking device in the phone that is activated when a 911 call is made. Just like the current system where a little light goes off on a board, but it will be a light based off of some sort of global coordinates rather than a street address. They have devices that are accurate to within 50 feet or so, definitely close enough to pinpoint one house.
Does it really need to be this complicated?
How hard would it be to have the software ask the user for the ZIP code of the area the phone will be used in?
Maybe it's cultural perspective issue, perhaps they consider it 'systmatically respecting public access to information'.
Perhaps, but how do you explain why South Korea has similar figures? South Korean culture is VERY different from Chinese culture and about as democratic as they come. As enlightened and provocative as your suggested idea is, I feel the reason is far simpler: The fact is that intellectual property does not benefit third world countries. So, when they get the chance, they ignore it. Can you blame them?
Intellectual property is the reason why otherwise cheap AIDS drugs remain financially out of reach of Africans whose populations are being decimated.
The vast majority of intellectual property is generated in the West. And yet, it's expected to be enforced worldwide. Economically, it doesn't make sense for them to enact stringent IP regulations when said regulations only rarely works in their favor.
Amazingly, not all that long ago, the United States came to the same conclusion. Despite the fact that IP law was mentioned in the constitution, the United States almost completely ignored European patents and copyrights until it became an economic power.
It might have been a campus-wide licensing agreement. When I was in university in the U.S., they sold Windows on CD-Rs in the student store
One might think that, but in all likelihood that isn't the case. Intellectual property, for better or worse, is systematically not respected in China.
Read about it. In 2004 it's estimated that only 4% of all software sold in China was legit.* And as shockingly low as that number may seem, it's not uncommon for most third world countries.
I always think it's funny how the industry targets college kids giving away copyrighted work for free while casting a blind eye on the REAL pirates making a profit from the illegal sale of copyrighted work.
*(Note: this figure is only ACTUAL sales--not including mythical "sales figures" like the RIAA/MPAA attempt to use. The difference is basically equating the profits of bootleggers to the losses of the industry, which IS a fair comparison, IMO.)
Combine the natural power of a tree with the functionality of a chain. Throw in a collar for good measure, and you've got synergy.
Be careful about this. DO NOT use this type of setup if it is possible for the dog to get hung over something. For instance, short fences or steep ledges can be the death of your best friend if he makes an excited jump. Don't count on the chain being too long for this to happen--dogs have a way of shortening the length by running around objects and the like.
And even if this isn't an issue, always have a spring attached between his collar and the chain. This will lessen the strain placed upon his throat when he attempts to run too far. A dog's neck is his weakest part. A cheap spring used in such a fashion can prevent a dislodged trachea.
Also, this should go without saying but, do not use choker (or "check") collars when attaching your dog to the chain. See the aforementioned neck comment.
Most importantly, don't leave your dog out unattended for extended periods of time. No good can come of it. Besides, why even bother having a pet if you're too busy to pay attention to it?
Not moot at all. IT's relatively easy to put up a 'poor little me' defense. As in "Poor little me, being sued by that huge coproration with dozens of lawyers in Armani suits (how can they be losing money if they can afford to pay the lawyers??), while I can't even afford one."
Is it? That defense matters in the court of law? Perhaps in public opinion, yes, but that's ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the trial.
Without a *decent* lawyer, even the most sound cases can go awry against the flurry of motions made by a million dollar lawyer or twelve. Why else would companies pay them so much?
Killed really? Because during this time period wasn't Saddam, being the good leader that you'd have us believe he was, building elaborate palaces?
Besides, sanctions were entirely in order and were managed by the beloved U.N.--the same organization whose authority opponents of the Iraq war use to call it "illegal".
Perhaps since you didn't answer my last question, you'd feel free to indulge me on this one, AC: Since we can't sanction rogue nations that threaten international peace and we can't take military action--because children would die from that too--what ARE we supposed to do?
Because a couple hundred thousand CHILDREN,you sick fucking pig, have been killed by you assholes.
Really? I've never seen any information indicating that so many Iraqi children died. If you'd be so kind as to point me to your reputable source of said figure, I would appreciate it.
Regardless, yes, children have died as a direct result of American military action. But whom do you blame? The guy who drops the precision guided bomb onto a military target in the midst of a war or the person who cowardly puts an anti-aircraft battery/weapons cache on top/inside of a school? Who benefits more from dead Iraqi children--the United States (which, at worst, is merely ambivalent) or jingoist pan-Arabic saber-rattlers?
I guess the question really comes down to this: do you have any figures on the number of children killed as a result of insurgents?
..cheer them on as they go around laying waste to every thing good, wise and moral.
What? Like Sadaam Hussein? The Taliban?
Oh... Maybe you mean domestically "good" things such as fair use and public domains? Tell me... which fundamentalist signed both the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act?
That being said, this program wont change that... kids will find a way around it, like they always have
Sure, technically, kids probably have an advantage, but that doesn't mean the parent doesn't have a good deal of control. For instance, it doesn't matter if a kid can circumvent this software if they don't have the money to buy the game in the first place. It doesn't matter if they can pirate a copy of the game, if the computer is in a common area so they get in trouble when they even try to play it.
Putting up your hands in defeat because a technical solution won't solve a parenting problem won't help anything. In fact, trusting our children to be babysat by an adult media is part of the problem.
Yes, we all hate the *AA's but they were breaking the law, and bastardizing a research network.
I agree completely... I know I, for one, can now rest easily knowing that the long arm of the RIAA's corporate law enforcement division is patroling Internet2...
If they have to write a program to beat the teacher's program, are the students not learning something very valuable (at least in the marketable business skills department)?
No. Only the person who writes the cheating program does.
See, that's the beauty of the internet, my friend. I don't even have to know how to program to beat CSS encryption on DVDs. I merely have to download said program from someone else (maybe even the only person in the entire world) who does know how.
Also, in order to write a program that creates essays that conform to the teachers program, will it not also be necessary to learn the grammar and logic rules the teacher considers to be important and even ponder those rules for extended periods of time?
My previous point aside, why do you assume that the class is on English? Why should a history teacher give a damn about your understanding of English? Even IF it was an English class... all of my college-level English classes haven't even touched on grammar or syntax. Those things are assumed.
Moreover, beyond looking for keywords, how does this program actually prove that the student knew what he or she was talking about? I think we have all come across beautifully expressed babble. What prevents a student (or a script?) from doing the same? Lastly, how can this guy claim victory while at the same time admitting that he never read the papers? How has he proven the program was functioning as intended?
For all of those seriously interested in this program: I've got a anti-baboon charm here to sell to you. Does it work, you ask? Well you don't see any baboons do you!?!
You know, I never really got this argument against the death penalty. So, the death penalty costs more because of the legal circus involved than life imprisonment... Why does that automatically lead to the conclusion that the death penalty is inefficient? Doesn't it just show that the justice system in America is on it's last leg? Moreover, if it turned out that the death penalty were in fact cheaper in some state, would you then support it?
Take a look at China, for instance. Upon conviction, healthy prisoners are taken to a hospital where their organs are removed and given/sold to those who need them. Prisoners who are unfit for organ "donation" are taken behind the courthouse and shot in the head. The cost of the bullet is then billed to the family of the prisoner.
Is this justice? Probably not. But is it efficient/cheap? Definitely. So, by the logic of the previous post, should it be the preferred method here in the US?
My point is, I don't think discussion on the death penalty should be muddled with practical concerns about cost. The issue is of a moral/ethical nature. Any party trying to appeal to the economics of the death penalty is avoiding (or at least missing) the real issue.
That's actually a bit of an unfair study. Chicken embryos are dividing rapidly during the 21 day period. As DNA unwinds to prepare for replication it is more susceptible to damage. This is why many chemotherapy drugs are, in fact, carcinogens: the damage being done to the DNA mostly affects replicating cells. Cancer cells, by definition, have lost their ability to control replication and are, thus, more vulnerable to DNA damage.
To control for this, the researchers should have used some organism with a similar tolerances to radiation as your brain--or as another poster pointed out, gametic (sperm-producing)--cells.
Slashdot Mirror
Altering the OS of your school provided laptop is probably not illegal, depending on what exactly you do. Unless you're unleashing a virus or destroying hardware, I really doubt anything will stick. I'm guessing this is the kind of thing the ACLU would help you with if you actually got in trouble.
Exactly. Unless you actually stole/damaged things--they'd be hard-pressed actually go through the trouble of ruining your life. It's this very fact that saved me back in the day.
Back when I was a senior in highschool (Class of '02), there was a computer-geek rebellion which I, by some strange twist of fate, found myself leading. It all started when the county bought some really nice computers for the fiber optic computer lab. Some of us got the bright idea to bring in cracked copies of Quake 2, Tribes 2, Unreal Tournament, and a bunch of other games to play during lulls in the classes. Most of the teachers didn't care. In fact, one of them even used "game time" as an incentive to get his lackadaisical senior students to do their assignments--with a lot of success I might add.
Then one of the hard-nosed teachers found out and made a habit of deleting the games. Of course, this was easily overcome by making copies of the game files locally and adding a few ifexist lines to the autoexec.bat of every machine to recreate the game should it be deleted. This worked for awhile until the county computer techs were called in to "See what was wrong."
Hoping to keep games off the computers, the county bought Clean Slate, a program used to lock down pre-XP computers. On the surface, the program seemed pretty tough. *All* changes/files created were removed every time the computer was restarted and only authorized programs were allowed to run. Of course, the BIOS was set as HD first to prevent bootdisking. The program was a huge hassle to both students and teachers alike.
This was first overcome by: 1) corrupting/resetting the BIOS 2)bootdisking in 3) REMing out the relevant lines in the autoexec and windows startup files. This entire process took approximately 20 seconds once you got good at it. And we did get good at it--there were over 300 computers in the school and every computer was unlocked (oftentimes the same day it was locked down). Unlocked computers were set with a blue background to indicate that they were fixed.
Eventually we wised up and just installed a keylogger on one of the computers scheduled to be locked down. Sure enough, you had to type in the password every time you installed the software. With the password (which worked throughout the school), many people actually used Clean Slate to protect the games from being deleted--which was just beautiful.
Figuring out what we were doing, they started to Norton Ghost the computers so that a direct install and password entry was not required. They also correctly configured Clean Slate so the BIOS couldn't be so easily corrupted. This too was eventually circumvented when we found out that Clean Slate is unable to apply its file protections to Novell Netware shared drives. If worse came to worse, and you had enough alone-time with the computer, you could always remove the case and reset the BIOS password with the pin.
Throughout this whole process, there was one rule among those involved: DO NOT DAMAGE THE COMPUTERS. Do not delete the Clean Slate files--only disable them. Do not put porn, ect. on the computers.
This turned out to be our saving grace. Eventually the computer technicians got fed up with our school. The network usage for our school was something like 30 times other schools in the county. Of course, all of this was occurring when the county was assuring the state that its computers would be ready for the new computer-based Standard of Learning (SOLs) tests. Bad timing. Entire meetings of the county school board were apparently based upon the
From what I can tell, the "war on terror" is all about scaring the shit out of law abiding citizens of countries like the US and UK whilest restricting their rights. Oh and invading other sovereign states on the grounds that they have weapons of mass destruction...
Sovereign states? Surely you don't believe pre-war Afghanistan and Iraq to be sovereign states. What kind of sovereignty is there in a oligarchy (in the guise of a theocracy) and a dictatorship?
Despite the fact that some illegal weapons were found and destroyed (medium-ranged missiles), your point is absurd even with regard to "real" WMDs. Both German and UK intelligence services believed Iraq had WMDs. The collective intelligence of states at the U.N. believed it when they voted on referendum 1440. The only time doubts even began to arise occurred when the time for action drew near and the proverbial lines in the sand were beginning to be drawn.
You can argue that the intelligence was bad because of serious structural and procedural problems at both domestic and international intelligence services. I'll agree with you. But sitting here claiming that intelligence never indicated the presence of any WMDs is completely bunk.
I'm not advocating the proliferation of nuclear weapons - I'm saying that before the US tells a country that they can't develop nukes, maybe the US should set an example and decomission their own...
This issue has nothing to do with fairness. I'd like to live in this idealistic paradise you seem to be in--it seems really nice. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like this. The approach you describe is like me trying to start a new wave of socialism simply by giving away all my possessions. It doesn't work that way.
You seem to be of the notion that everyone thinks defensively such as yourself. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Like it or not (I personally don't), international stability depends in part upon the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) even now in the post-Cold War era. Expecting North Korea, for example, to not develop and use nuclear weapons simply because its enemies don't have them only works if the DPRK is concerned solely with defense, which they most certainly are not. Removing the threat of nuclear retaliation only makes the option of developing and using nuclear weapons aggressively that much more viable.
The goal shouldn't be to remove all nuclear weapons technology wherever it exists. If there's anything the P2P battles (or any other instance in which groups have tried to stop the inevitable march of technological progress) have taught us anything it's that: hiding or preventing people from getting access completely to a technology for an indefinite amount of time is impossible. Preventing certain groups, however, from obtaining the technology is well within our power. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to unstable or rogue nations is a beneficial, pragmatic goal. Perhaps it's not fair, but lives and international stability depend upon it.
-Grym
I think you can safely say that the US has killed more people with nukes than Iraq...
...because Iraq never obtained any nuclear weapons. Of course, you take this as meaning that, if they did, they wouldn't have used them, but that thought is just patently untrue and flies in the face of Saddam's brutal history of aggressively using chemical weapons against his own people and Iranians. Which, brings us back to the whole perceived impetus (Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in) for the war in Iraq to begin with.
I think many countries are more in need of weapons to defend themselves against an attack by the US than the US is in need of weapons to defend themselves.
Are you living under a rock or something? The war on terror has less to do with legitimate nation-states obtaining nuclear weapons (See: India and Pakistan) and more to do with rogue nations and terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Simply allowing unfettered proliferation of nuclear weapons to fanatics unaccountable to their own people would be a bad--if not lethal--situation for everyone in the world.
-Grym
I forgot--perhaps you can refresh my memory: How many nukes did we use in the most recent Iraq war?
-Grym
The Japanese offered to surrender...
What?
Japanese soldiers out of supplies and hope for victory often ran off nearby cliffs and even, in some cases, resorted to cannibalism rather than surrender.
For the Japanese, submitting in battle was the worst humiliation possible. Only the realistic prospect of utter annihilation would (and did) convince them to surrender.
What a waste of human life.
Agreed. Unfortunately, war often confronts us with difficult situations that require less than ideal actions.
But since they weren't American, I guess it doesn't count, right? Kinda like all those Iraqis.
Which Iraqis? The ones Saddam killed on a regular basis? Funny how they seem to be forgotten in all of the vitriolic grandstanding from the far left.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it ironic that the faction which champions ideals of tolerance and a sophisticated worldview seems to have this notion that the United States holds a monopoly on the evil of the world? That *if only* the US didn't exist, some magical utopia would appear? It almost makes the evangelical far right look intelligent--which is a difficult task indeed.
-Grym
If a credit company were to advertise their excellent record of protecting data, it might make people use them instead of the competition.
"GeneroBank: At least we won't be negligent with your personal information!"
-Grym
I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost. [emphasis mine]
99.9%? Bullshit. Show me your source for that figure, or did you just make it up off the top of your head like the rest of your sweeping statements?
Modern pharmaceutical companies spend more in advertising than they do on research and development. For most companies their advertising costs are at least twice their research and development costs; for some, it's nearly quadruple.
Don't believe it? Open your eyes. Turn on your television. Open a magazine. Or better yet, read the actual figures. We're in the middle of a non-stop advertising blitz. And that's just for the public! Pharmaceutical reps spend ridiculous amounts on comping doctors and hospitals in order to ensure sales--do you really think you can just wave your hand and make those very significant costs go away?
-Grym
It really means one thing. Sony isn't nearly as serious about their online plan as they should be, and bye-bye to content download as a standard option on the PS3.
And I say good riddance! The only reason publishers are pushing for content downloads is so they can stick you with "micropayments" later. example: "Want that uber weapon you just got killed by? Buy it for only 50 cents!"
Many marketing people see this as the holy grail in business models. It plays off the addictive nature of gamers to want to "be the best." Moreover, each price is so small that people are likely to impulse buy--just like they do with the candy bars in the checkout line. Best of all, you don't need to do any extra work--simply hold back some content and release it later... for a fee, of course.
Thanks but no thanks. Maybe it's just me but I'd rather not be nickeled and dimed for every little feature that should already have been present.
-Grym
"God told me to do it" is not a valid excuse. It works for Bush.
They should have fired the Imam ... Which "they" do you mean?
Ahh yes, because the United States has a monopoly on all the evil of the world, with Fox News and George Bush being the chief sources. You know, this type of world-view would be comical were it not for its disturbingly marked prevalence.
People who refuse to admit that Islam is (for whatever reason or another; "interpretation," S.E.S. of most believers, ect.) the most intolerant and aggressive major religion of the modern world are either ignorant of the facts or burying their heads in the sand.
-Grym
I'm not going to dispute your larger claim that the GP's figure is incorrect (in all likelihood, it is).
However, I think that it is still possible to eliminate all life on earth by the simultaneous detonation of all the world's nuclear weapons. Why? The fallout; the radiation.
Not only would you be asking organisms to survive the dust and debris in the atmosphere, blocking out the sun for years. (Which is really what hurt the ecosystem.) But the prevalence of radiation would be the final blow, making life unsustainable.
As with all of these discussions, what is life? Is "life" a few bacterial colonies at the bottom of the ocean? If so, you're right, "life," in the most absolute sense, might survive, but any significant and meaningful presence would be, in my opinion, out of the question.
-Grym
Does it really need to be this complicated?
How hard would it be to have the software ask the user for the ZIP code of the area the phone will be used in?
Must we always use high-tech solutions?
-Grym
My Bank BB&T won't work with Firefox. =(
-Grym
Maybe it's cultural perspective issue, perhaps they consider it 'systmatically respecting public access to information'.
Perhaps, but how do you explain why South Korea has similar figures? South Korean culture is VERY different from Chinese culture and about as democratic as they come. As enlightened and provocative as your suggested idea is, I feel the reason is far simpler: The fact is that intellectual property does not benefit third world countries. So, when they get the chance, they ignore it. Can you blame them?
Intellectual property is the reason why otherwise cheap AIDS drugs remain financially out of reach of Africans whose populations are being decimated.
The vast majority of intellectual property is generated in the West. And yet, it's expected to be enforced worldwide. Economically, it doesn't make sense for them to enact stringent IP regulations when said regulations only rarely works in their favor.
Amazingly, not all that long ago, the United States came to the same conclusion. Despite the fact that IP law was mentioned in the constitution, the United States almost completely ignored European patents and copyrights until it became an economic power.
-Grym
It might have been a campus-wide licensing agreement. When I was in university in the U.S., they sold Windows on CD-Rs in the student store
One might think that, but in all likelihood that isn't the case. Intellectual property, for better or worse, is systematically not respected in China.
Read about it. In 2004 it's estimated that only 4% of all software sold in China was legit.* And as shockingly low as that number may seem, it's not uncommon for most third world countries.
I always think it's funny how the industry targets college kids giving away copyrighted work for free while casting a blind eye on the REAL pirates making a profit from the illegal sale of copyrighted work.
*(Note: this figure is only ACTUAL sales--not including mythical "sales figures" like the RIAA/MPAA attempt to use. The difference is basically equating the profits of bootleggers to the losses of the industry, which IS a fair comparison, IMO.)
-Grym
Combine the natural power of a tree with the functionality of a chain. Throw in a collar for good measure, and you've got synergy.
Be careful about this. DO NOT use this type of setup if it is possible for the dog to get hung over something. For instance, short fences or steep ledges can be the death of your best friend if he makes an excited jump. Don't count on the chain being too long for this to happen--dogs have a way of shortening the length by running around objects and the like.
And even if this isn't an issue, always have a spring attached between his collar and the chain. This will lessen the strain placed upon his throat when he attempts to run too far. A dog's neck is his weakest part. A cheap spring used in such a fashion can prevent a dislodged trachea.
Also, this should go without saying but, do not use choker (or "check") collars when attaching your dog to the chain. See the aforementioned neck comment.
Most importantly, don't leave your dog out unattended for extended periods of time. No good can come of it. Besides, why even bother having a pet if you're too busy to pay attention to it?
-Grym
Not moot at all. IT's relatively easy to put up a 'poor little me' defense. As in "Poor little me, being sued by that huge coproration with dozens of lawyers in Armani suits (how can they be losing money if they can afford to pay the lawyers??), while I can't even afford one."
Is it? That defense matters in the court of law? Perhaps in public opinion, yes, but that's ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the trial.
Without a *decent* lawyer, even the most sound cases can go awry against the flurry of motions made by a million dollar lawyer or twelve. Why else would companies pay them so much?
-Grym
Sanctions have killed lots of kids
Killed really? Because during this time period wasn't Saddam, being the good leader that you'd have us believe he was, building elaborate palaces?
Besides, sanctions were entirely in order and were managed by the beloved U.N.--the same organization whose authority opponents of the Iraq war use to call it "illegal".
Perhaps since you didn't answer my last question, you'd feel free to indulge me on this one, AC: Since we can't sanction rogue nations that threaten international peace and we can't take military action--because children would die from that too--what ARE we supposed to do?
-Grym
Because a couple hundred thousand CHILDREN ,you sick fucking pig, have been killed by you assholes.
Really? I've never seen any information indicating that so many Iraqi children died. If you'd be so kind as to point me to your reputable source of said figure, I would appreciate it.
Regardless, yes, children have died as a direct result of American military action. But whom do you blame? The guy who drops the precision guided bomb onto a military target in the midst of a war or the person who cowardly puts an anti-aircraft battery/weapons cache on top/inside of a school? Who benefits more from dead Iraqi children--the United States (which, at worst, is merely ambivalent) or jingoist pan-Arabic saber-rattlers?
I guess the question really comes down to this: do you have any figures on the number of children killed as a result of insurgents?
-Grym
What? Like Sadaam Hussein? The Taliban?
Oh... Maybe you mean domestically "good" things such as fair use and public domains? Tell me... which fundamentalist signed both the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act?
-Grym
You failed to read the next line of my post:
"It doesn't matter if they can pirate a copy of the game, if the computer is in a common area so they get in trouble when they even try to play it."
-Grym
That being said, this program wont change that... kids will find a way around it, like they always have
Sure, technically, kids probably have an advantage, but that doesn't mean the parent doesn't have a good deal of control. For instance, it doesn't matter if a kid can circumvent this software if they don't have the money to buy the game in the first place. It doesn't matter if they can pirate a copy of the game, if the computer is in a common area so they get in trouble when they even try to play it.
Putting up your hands in defeat because a technical solution won't solve a parenting problem won't help anything. In fact, trusting our children to be babysat by an adult media is part of the problem.
-Grym
Yes, we all hate the *AA's but they were breaking the law, and bastardizing a research network.
I agree completely... I know I, for one, can now rest easily knowing that the long arm of the RIAA's corporate law enforcement division is patroling Internet2...
-Grym
If they have to write a program to beat the teacher's program, are the students not learning something very valuable (at least in the marketable business skills department)?
No. Only the person who writes the cheating program does.
See, that's the beauty of the internet, my friend. I don't even have to know how to program to beat CSS encryption on DVDs. I merely have to download said program from someone else (maybe even the only person in the entire world) who does know how.
Also, in order to write a program that creates essays that conform to the teachers program, will it not also be necessary to learn the grammar and logic rules the teacher considers to be important and even ponder those rules for extended periods of time?
My previous point aside, why do you assume that the class is on English? Why should a history teacher give a damn about your understanding of English? Even IF it was an English class... all of my college-level English classes haven't even touched on grammar or syntax. Those things are assumed.
Moreover, beyond looking for keywords, how does this program actually prove that the student knew what he or she was talking about? I think we have all come across beautifully expressed babble. What prevents a student (or a script?) from doing the same? Lastly, how can this guy claim victory while at the same time admitting that he never read the papers? How has he proven the program was functioning as intended?
For all of those seriously interested in this program: I've got a anti-baboon charm here to sell to you. Does it work, you ask? Well you don't see any baboons do you!?!
-Grym
You know, I never really got this argument against the death penalty. So, the death penalty costs more because of the legal circus involved than life imprisonment... Why does that automatically lead to the conclusion that the death penalty is inefficient? Doesn't it just show that the justice system in America is on it's last leg? Moreover, if it turned out that the death penalty were in fact cheaper in some state, would you then support it?
Take a look at China, for instance. Upon conviction, healthy prisoners are taken to a hospital where their organs are removed and given/sold to those who need them. Prisoners who are unfit for organ "donation" are taken behind the courthouse and shot in the head. The cost of the bullet is then billed to the family of the prisoner.
Is this justice? Probably not. But is it efficient/cheap? Definitely. So, by the logic of the previous post, should it be the preferred method here in the US?
My point is, I don't think discussion on the death penalty should be muddled with practical concerns about cost. The issue is of a moral/ethical nature. Any party trying to appeal to the economics of the death penalty is avoiding (or at least missing) the real issue.
-Grym
That's actually a bit of an unfair study. Chicken embryos are dividing rapidly during the 21 day period. As DNA unwinds to prepare for replication it is more susceptible to damage. This is why many chemotherapy drugs are, in fact, carcinogens: the damage being done to the DNA mostly affects replicating cells. Cancer cells, by definition, have lost their ability to control replication and are, thus, more vulnerable to DNA damage.
To control for this, the researchers should have used some organism with a similar tolerances to radiation as your brain--or as another poster pointed out, gametic (sperm-producing)--cells.
-Grym