The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada.
If they did not expect privacy then why did they anonymously post? Perhaps they posted anonymously because they specifically did not want, desire, or expect privacy - after all, they could have used their own credentials. Nope, that can't be it.
Not according to the active military guy above who claims his account was terminated because Steam observed IPs using his account from around the world; presumably where he had been stationed.
Second, Gabe himself said that if steam were ever to go down, he would remove any and all restrictions from playing your game, without the steam servers.
There are industry standards to ensure such conditions are met. This is called software escrow and they can even ensure an independent third party performs these actions after Steam is no more.
The simple fact is, I've never heard of him placing this software and/or capability or a plan of execution to ensure his plan follows the demise of this company. Until that happens his words are nothing but meaningless dribble which has meaning to only the most ignorant and naive in our society. In short, you have to be pretty naive to take those types of statements at face value.
Is it possible he means what he says? Flip a coin? Is it likely he'll follow through with his statement? Get everyone in the northern hemisphere to jump up and down at the exact same time and then we'll talk.;) Remember, if his company goes belly up, he may not have servers or even bandwidth available to him to turn off DRM, let alone have these resources on line for a long enough period so as to allow for 100% of the customer base to be freed. So even if he means well, it is practically impossible for him to be even close to ensuring Steam customers are protected. And the only way to ensure this includes software escrow. Until that happens, his statements is for suckers.
If it smells like chicken, and tastes like chicken then yes, it could very-well BE chicken... but it could also just be grilled frog.
And that's exactly the point. Even if it is not chicken (cold fusion) it (frog) is still edible. Should further research result in a useful product, ultimately who cares if it is frog or chicken - so long as the meal is free.
I've seen a documentary on these guys. In the documentary they had several, highly sceptical, well respected physicists review their work - as in a couple of days, not weeks and weeks of peer review. All of them walked away saying stuff like, "I don't know what is going on but they are observing something. It may be a new phenomenon or an existing, well understood reaction created in an unconventional manner. I've not seen enough to say it is cold fusion - but more study is clearly indicated."
The people who have performed critical peer reviews have been equally stymied. Given the stigma associated with cold-fusion no one wants to stamp it accordingly. Just the same, just about everyone who critically reviews the available data and experiments walk away unable to explain the experiment. Furthermore, the more vocal saying its impossible and assuring everyone they have not created cold fusion have never even seen the data or talked with the group.
So to summarize: o Everyone is seeing an effect which can easily be characterized as "cold fusion"-like.
o No one is willing to call it "cold fusion" because of the stigma. Saying it is cold fusion can be a career ending position - even if they are right - because of the stigma.
o All of the data thus far validates this is not fraud and clearly indicates something worthwhile is being observed in recreatable experiments.
o The people saying its impossible look like idiots because they refuse to consider the possibility, participate in a peer review, or even attempt to better understand and/or learn more about the experiment.
It may not be cold fusion but thus far, it smells and tastes like it. Regardless of what you call it, more research is clearly indicated.
founding fathers need to stand on the basis of the arguments, not on the basis of the author.
I think we're playing with semantics here. My point is, the majority of our well recognized forefathers are well recognized for exactly the reason you state; the basis of their arguments are nearly bullet proof because in many cases they were debated for years if not decades. In other words, the author's stand on their own simply because the arguments which are so well read can still stand on their own after two centuries and some change.
The simple fact is that the founding fathers in general are given way too much weight in determining what we consider rights today.
I disagree. I'd argue few people are in a position to contradict the bulk of their arguments. Many of their arguments used to establish their position are as true then as they are today. When I take the time to review the works of some of our forefathers I'm often struck by the profound insight, in that many of their words ring true even today - and in some cases, truer.
People then come along with tunnel vision and with five minutes of insincere "thought", which are found to be false statements with little critical review, go on to believe little if nothing established, discussed, or profoundly upheld after much debate, is applicable today.
Frankly, I find it all too easily found, almost everything wrong with this country today wreaks of early dismissal by nothing more than irrational hand-waving and ignorant departure from the plans laid out by the founders of our country - and some who came after.
Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.
And a good number of them would be there to spit back. You're confusing societal norms with what our forefather's considered to be an inaliable right. Many of our forefathers were against slavery but were not willing to push their luck because they were, by far, in the minority.
Uh huh. Nukes are cool too. Everyone should have one. That will make all our problems go away. After all, a well armed society is a polite society and all that. Except there'll always be a few who insist on being a bit impolite with their nukes. But no problem since you can nuke them back eh?
That's obviously crazy talk. You pretty well confirmed my "crazy anti-gun" comments all the while your ignorantly ignore the entire point of my post. I am in no way advocating nukes for private citizens. And contrary to your ignorance, nukes are NOT strategic weapons. They are strategic deterrents. Pretty much everyone post-MacArthur understands this. Nukes have a endless list of other issues; most all well outside the understanding of a laymen. You sir, have ignorantly validated by point by playing the obvious stawman argument.
Owning a weapon does not signify a crime. Owning a firearm does not enable someone to commit murder. Strangulation and stabbing are still completely viable (and probably easier) ways to kill someone.
And this is exactly the perception that needs to change. Owning a gun is a civic duty, a national honour, and a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Contrary to poplar media, it is the anti-gun people that are both crazy and unamerican. They justify it by putting a face of a tiny, tiny minority and projecting it as the face of anyone who loves the US Constitution and the 2nd amendment, which are often referred to as, "gun nuts". But the simple fact is, if so many were not so unamerican and anti-gun crazy, the "gun nuts" wouldn't have a platform in the first place. And all of that ignores the vast, vast majority of gun owners are polar opposites from the often portrayed, "gun nuts."
I think it's fair to say, society has changed since then.
In what way. Actually, things are right on schedule according to what our forefather's expect. They fully expected our government would grow entirely corrupt and they specifically knew, understood, and made allowances for correction of a corrupt government by any means, up to and including revolt. Thus far, its pretty easy to see the rampant corruption of our government. The government is clearly no longer "for the people, by the people". And as time passes on, ignorance such as yours serves only to empower the corruption while destroying the very rights our forefathers put in place to protect us all.
So with that said, really what does gun ownership get you?
If you have to ask, you direly need to catch up on some basic military history from around the world. The people of the US direly need to take back our 2nd amendment such that silly questions as your own need never be asked; as it should be explicitly understood by the nature of the weapons to which the Constitution guarantees.
What good is your right to collect semiautomatic weapons against a tank or jet fighter?
You need to learn some basic history. Bolt action rifles shot down jets during Vietnam. Afghanistan shows us semiautomatic weapons work wonders against tank crews; they all have to eat, sleep, go to the restroom, and refuel. Just ask the Russians. In fact, it took helicopters to turn the tide back in Russia's favour - to wit the US provided AA-missiles to shift things back the other way.
And in the end, your point is exactly the point I was making. The 2nd amendment's entire point is to ensure the public has access to military grade weapons exactly so they can defend their country from both external armies and internal corruption.
The 2nd amendment, as you said, is toothless only because anti-gun crazy people have been empowered enough to spit on the Constitution - in attempts to make it toothless.
The ultimate safeguard to ensure the American people would never again be victimized by their government.
Your car doesn't see 1/1000 the care and attention airplanes receive on an annual basis. Airplanes don't receive 1/100000 the care the shuttle receives after each flight.
Get back to me when you fully disassemble your car annually, bore scope the engine, remove the pistons, allowing for cylinder and crank analysis, perform metallurgical analysis of your oil after each change, x-ray your chassis and frame, ensure it is never overloaded, so on and so on. There are many 50-year old planes which are in better shape than six month old cars; and the spread only gets larger as cars age. And keep in mind, planes on an annual basis, don't receive anywhere near the attention the space shuttle does after each and every flight.
The largest concern with the life of a shuttle is fatigue and they closely monitor this - which is exactly why they X-ray and use many other technologies to look for precursors for fatigue, before it can ever become a factor.
There is a long list of factors which are likely to take out a shuttle and age is nowhere near the top of that list. First and foremost are human factors. Heck, even working against it is the fact the space shuttle is the most complex piece of technology ever assembled by man; as complexity has never been a plus under the safety column.
The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.
Actually, that was all but explicitly understood until fairly recently when anti-gun crazies took power. People are all too much in a hurry to forget, not so many years ago, your neighbour might have a CANNON in his garage for the local militia. His neighbour, in turn, might have a mortar...so on and so on. Let's not also forget many powerful warships were actually privately held, and in many cases, owned by private merchant consortiums. Please keep in mind, warships were the strategic arm of their day.
Even as recently after WWII, it was common for soldiers to retire with their weapon - which include BAR machine guns,.45 cal "Tommy Guns", and.45 cal pistols. Additionally, during WWII, civilians living on strategic coast lines were trained and ISSUED artillery to be used against any enemy ships or submarines found off the coast. And let's not forget CAP pilots, flying privately owned aircraft, dropped military issued bombs on U-boats off the coast, inside US waters.
The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia. Its only been in fairly recent times anti-gun, anti-Constitution, anti-second amendment nuts have been empowered enough to spit on our forefathers with the ignorant applause of the majority. Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
And to clarify, many, many different types of weapons are categorized as "strategic arms" - which even includes air planes. Simple fact is, according to our forefathers and the US Constitution, militias have this right. And up until not so many years ago, this right was implicitly understood.
Not to mention because Enterprise was a prototype which was never intended to fly in space, it is way over built. As such, it is the heaviest shuttle ever created. Because of its weight it could have barely achieved LEO, making it unable to service many of the missions to which the other shuttles currently service.
In short, making Enterprise space-ready means paying more for less capability than what is achieved with Endeavour.
Exactly. There is nothing unethical about traffic shaping so long as it is not applied with bias to some subset of selected users.
For example, if P2P applications represent 80% of the highest use users, its fair to say shaping this traffic is easily justified. Especially if these users represent a tiny minority of their user base. On the other hand, if these users only represent, for example, 1% of the highest bandwidth consumers, not only does it not make sense to worry about these users, IMHO, it would be unethical to shape traffic such that it negatively effected these users. Of course, the second situation is not likely to occur but hopefully it illustrates the point.
Great. More MS news. This after they've begun massive layoffs of US workers only to immediately turn around and begin hiring H1Bs for the exact same jobs. Meanwhile MS has protected their existing H1Bs.
MS has publicly stated otherwise but more and more news outlets are starting to pick up on MS' practise - and in some case changing decisions because of the recent bad publicity of them giving the finger to US workers during a recession.
I hope there will be no footage of blown O-rings or damaged tiles. Shuttles are getting old.
I wish people would stop saying this. While technically true its also misleading and surrounded by an endless list of exceptions.
Simple fact is, the reason the shuttle costs so dang much to send into space after each mission is because so much of it is replaced and refurbished after each flight. Literally every inch of wiring is reviewed. All suspect wear components are replaced. This basically leaves the structure it self which is routinely x-rayed like jets. Unlikely jets, each flight is also modelled to analyze stresses induced from the flight, both before (using historic data) and after (using obtained sensor data). Furthermore, all of the sensor data is reviewed and analyzed to determine if anything else requires additional preview.
The previous shuttle accidents have had absolutely nothing to do with the shuttles age. Rather, the accidents have occurred because of failure to followed established procedures and failure to listen to the engineers responsible for various components involved in the failures. Simply put, human error has been the single root cause in all known shuttle accidents and at no point in time has the shuttle's age even been an established component in those failures.
Its more accurate to say, "I hope there will be no footage of people not following procedure or damaged as a result of humans not following procedure. People are getting old." But I guess that factually correct statement isn't really as provocative.
Long story short, age is not a first order factor. Any components which would have fallen into this characterization have already been replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
It was way too long, though
Are you talking about the movie or Dr. Manhattan? ...duck and cover...
The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada.
If they did not expect privacy then why did they anonymously post? Perhaps they posted anonymously because they specifically did not want, desire, or expect privacy - after all, they could have used their own credentials. Nope, that can't be it.
Ya! My 200G ipod can hold three songs now!
The last time the chimp community lost GPS signals they all started crashing into each other and exploding. It was a real tragedy.
Rumour has it Microsoft's Ballmer was repeatedly spotted running into walls and throwing chairs.
but they're certainly portable between machines.
Not according to the active military guy above who claims his account was terminated because Steam observed IPs using his account from around the world; presumably where he had been stationed.
Second, Gabe himself said that if steam were ever to go down, he would remove any and all restrictions from playing your game, without the steam servers.
There are industry standards to ensure such conditions are met. This is called software escrow and they can even ensure an independent third party performs these actions after Steam is no more.
The simple fact is, I've never heard of him placing this software and/or capability or a plan of execution to ensure his plan follows the demise of this company. Until that happens his words are nothing but meaningless dribble which has meaning to only the most ignorant and naive in our society. In short, you have to be pretty naive to take those types of statements at face value.
Is it possible he means what he says? Flip a coin? Is it likely he'll follow through with his statement? Get everyone in the northern hemisphere to jump up and down at the exact same time and then we'll talk. ;) Remember, if his company goes belly up, he may not have servers or even bandwidth available to him to turn off DRM, let alone have these resources on line for a long enough period so as to allow for 100% of the customer base to be freed. So even if he means well, it is practically impossible for him to be even close to ensuring Steam customers are protected. And the only way to ensure this includes software escrow. Until that happens, his statements is for suckers.
If it smells like chicken, and tastes like chicken then yes, it could very-well BE chicken... but it could also just be grilled frog.
And that's exactly the point. Even if it is not chicken (cold fusion) it (frog) is still edible. Should further research result in a useful product, ultimately who cares if it is frog or chicken - so long as the meal is free.
I've seen a documentary on these guys. In the documentary they had several, highly sceptical, well respected physicists review their work - as in a couple of days, not weeks and weeks of peer review. All of them walked away saying stuff like, "I don't know what is going on but they are observing something. It may be a new phenomenon or an existing, well understood reaction created in an unconventional manner. I've not seen enough to say it is cold fusion - but more study is clearly indicated."
The people who have performed critical peer reviews have been equally stymied. Given the stigma associated with cold-fusion no one wants to stamp it accordingly. Just the same, just about everyone who critically reviews the available data and experiments walk away unable to explain the experiment. Furthermore, the more vocal saying its impossible and assuring everyone they have not created cold fusion have never even seen the data or talked with the group.
So to summarize:
o Everyone is seeing an effect which can easily be characterized as "cold fusion"-like.
o No one is willing to call it "cold fusion" because of the stigma. Saying it is cold fusion can be a career ending position - even if they are right - because of the stigma.
o All of the data thus far validates this is not fraud and clearly indicates something worthwhile is being observed in recreatable experiments.
o The people saying its impossible look like idiots because they refuse to consider the possibility, participate in a peer review, or even attempt to better understand and/or learn more about the experiment.
It may not be cold fusion but thus far, it smells and tastes like it. Regardless of what you call it, more research is clearly indicated.
founding fathers need to stand on the basis of the arguments, not on the basis of the author.
I think we're playing with semantics here. My point is, the majority of our well recognized forefathers are well recognized for exactly the reason you state; the basis of their arguments are nearly bullet proof because in many cases they were debated for years if not decades. In other words, the author's stand on their own simply because the arguments which are so well read can still stand on their own after two centuries and some change.
That's a great re-cap!
The simple fact is that the founding fathers in general are given way too much weight in determining what we consider rights today.
I disagree. I'd argue few people are in a position to contradict the bulk of their arguments. Many of their arguments used to establish their position are as true then as they are today. When I take the time to review the works of some of our forefathers I'm often struck by the profound insight, in that many of their words ring true even today - and in some cases, truer.
People then come along with tunnel vision and with five minutes of insincere "thought", which are found to be false statements with little critical review, go on to believe little if nothing established, discussed, or profoundly upheld after much debate, is applicable today.
Frankly, I find it all too easily found, almost everything wrong with this country today wreaks of early dismissal by nothing more than irrational hand-waving and ignorant departure from the plans laid out by the founders of our country - and some who came after.
Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.
And a good number of them would be there to spit back. You're confusing societal norms with what our forefather's considered to be an inaliable right. Many of our forefathers were against slavery but were not willing to push their luck because they were, by far, in the minority.
Uh huh. Nukes are cool too. Everyone should have one. That will make all our problems go away. After all, a well armed society is a polite society and all that. Except there'll always be a few who insist on being a bit impolite with their nukes. But no problem since you can nuke them back eh?
That's obviously crazy talk. You pretty well confirmed my "crazy anti-gun" comments all the while your ignorantly ignore the entire point of my post. I am in no way advocating nukes for private citizens. And contrary to your ignorance, nukes are NOT strategic weapons. They are strategic deterrents. Pretty much everyone post-MacArthur understands this. Nukes have a endless list of other issues; most all well outside the understanding of a laymen. You sir, have ignorantly validated by point by playing the obvious stawman argument.
Owning a weapon does not signify a crime. Owning a firearm does not enable someone to commit murder. Strangulation and stabbing are still completely viable (and probably easier) ways to kill someone.
And this is exactly the perception that needs to change. Owning a gun is a civic duty, a national honour, and a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Contrary to poplar media, it is the anti-gun people that are both crazy and unamerican. They justify it by putting a face of a tiny, tiny minority and projecting it as the face of anyone who loves the US Constitution and the 2nd amendment, which are often referred to as, "gun nuts". But the simple fact is, if so many were not so unamerican and anti-gun crazy, the "gun nuts" wouldn't have a platform in the first place. And all of that ignores the vast, vast majority of gun owners are polar opposites from the often portrayed, "gun nuts."
I think it's fair to say, society has changed since then.
In what way. Actually, things are right on schedule according to what our forefather's expect. They fully expected our government would grow entirely corrupt and they specifically knew, understood, and made allowances for correction of a corrupt government by any means, up to and including revolt. Thus far, its pretty easy to see the rampant corruption of our government. The government is clearly no longer "for the people, by the people". And as time passes on, ignorance such as yours serves only to empower the corruption while destroying the very rights our forefathers put in place to protect us all.
So with that said, really what does gun ownership get you?
If you have to ask, you direly need to catch up on some basic military history from around the world. The people of the US direly need to take back our 2nd amendment such that silly questions as your own need never be asked; as it should be explicitly understood by the nature of the weapons to which the Constitution guarantees.
What good is your right to collect semiautomatic weapons against a tank or jet fighter?
You need to learn some basic history. Bolt action rifles shot down jets during Vietnam. Afghanistan shows us semiautomatic weapons work wonders against tank crews; they all have to eat, sleep, go to the restroom, and refuel. Just ask the Russians. In fact, it took helicopters to turn the tide back in Russia's favour - to wit the US provided AA-missiles to shift things back the other way.
And in the end, your point is exactly the point I was making. The 2nd amendment's entire point is to ensure the public has access to military grade weapons exactly so they can defend their country from both external armies and internal corruption.
The 2nd amendment, as you said, is toothless only because anti-gun crazy people have been empowered enough to spit on the Constitution - in attempts to make it toothless.
The ultimate safeguard to ensure the American people would never again be victimized by their government.
Exactly!
Your car doesn't see 1/1000 the care and attention airplanes receive on an annual basis. Airplanes don't receive 1/100000 the care the shuttle receives after each flight.
Get back to me when you fully disassemble your car annually, bore scope the engine, remove the pistons, allowing for cylinder and crank analysis, perform metallurgical analysis of your oil after each change, x-ray your chassis and frame, ensure it is never overloaded, so on and so on. There are many 50-year old planes which are in better shape than six month old cars; and the spread only gets larger as cars age. And keep in mind, planes on an annual basis, don't receive anywhere near the attention the space shuttle does after each and every flight.
The largest concern with the life of a shuttle is fatigue and they closely monitor this - which is exactly why they X-ray and use many other technologies to look for precursors for fatigue, before it can ever become a factor.
There is a long list of factors which are likely to take out a shuttle and age is nowhere near the top of that list. First and foremost are human factors. Heck, even working against it is the fact the space shuttle is the most complex piece of technology ever assembled by man; as complexity has never been a plus under the safety column.
My IQ just dropped 20 points reading that.
You are once again part of their target demographic. Congratulations!
The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.
Actually, that was all but explicitly understood until fairly recently when anti-gun crazies took power. People are all too much in a hurry to forget, not so many years ago, your neighbour might have a CANNON in his garage for the local militia. His neighbour, in turn, might have a mortar...so on and so on. Let's not also forget many powerful warships were actually privately held, and in many cases, owned by private merchant consortiums. Please keep in mind, warships were the strategic arm of their day.
Even as recently after WWII, it was common for soldiers to retire with their weapon - which include BAR machine guns, .45 cal "Tommy Guns", and .45 cal pistols. Additionally, during WWII, civilians living on strategic coast lines were trained and ISSUED artillery to be used against any enemy ships or submarines found off the coast. And let's not forget CAP pilots, flying privately owned aircraft, dropped military issued bombs on U-boats off the coast, inside US waters.
The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia. Its only been in fairly recent times anti-gun, anti-Constitution, anti-second amendment nuts have been empowered enough to spit on our forefathers with the ignorant applause of the majority. Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
And to clarify, many, many different types of weapons are categorized as "strategic arms" - which even includes air planes. Simple fact is, according to our forefathers and the US Constitution, militias have this right. And up until not so many years ago, this right was implicitly understood.
A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country.
So much so that many countries have a rifle of some form, often an AK47, on their nation's flag.
Not to mention because Enterprise was a prototype which was never intended to fly in space, it is way over built. As such, it is the heaviest shuttle ever created. Because of its weight it could have barely achieved LEO, making it unable to service many of the missions to which the other shuttles currently service.
In short, making Enterprise space-ready means paying more for less capability than what is achieved with Endeavour.
Exactly. There is nothing unethical about traffic shaping so long as it is not applied with bias to some subset of selected users.
For example, if P2P applications represent 80% of the highest use users, its fair to say shaping this traffic is easily justified. Especially if these users represent a tiny minority of their user base. On the other hand, if these users only represent, for example, 1% of the highest bandwidth consumers, not only does it not make sense to worry about these users, IMHO, it would be unethical to shape traffic such that it negatively effected these users. Of course, the second situation is not likely to occur but hopefully it illustrates the point.
Great. More MS news. This after they've begun massive layoffs of US workers only to immediately turn around and begin hiring H1Bs for the exact same jobs. Meanwhile MS has protected their existing H1Bs.
MS has publicly stated otherwise but more and more news outlets are starting to pick up on MS' practise - and in some case changing decisions because of the recent bad publicity of them giving the finger to US workers during a recession.
I hope there will be no footage of blown O-rings or damaged tiles. Shuttles are getting old.
I wish people would stop saying this. While technically true its also misleading and surrounded by an endless list of exceptions.
Simple fact is, the reason the shuttle costs so dang much to send into space after each mission is because so much of it is replaced and refurbished after each flight. Literally every inch of wiring is reviewed. All suspect wear components are replaced. This basically leaves the structure it self which is routinely x-rayed like jets. Unlikely jets, each flight is also modelled to analyze stresses induced from the flight, both before (using historic data) and after (using obtained sensor data). Furthermore, all of the sensor data is reviewed and analyzed to determine if anything else requires additional preview.
The previous shuttle accidents have had absolutely nothing to do with the shuttles age. Rather, the accidents have occurred because of failure to followed established procedures and failure to listen to the engineers responsible for various components involved in the failures. Simply put, human error has been the single root cause in all known shuttle accidents and at no point in time has the shuttle's age even been an established component in those failures.
Its more accurate to say, "I hope there will be no footage of people not following procedure or damaged as a result of humans not following procedure. People are getting old." But I guess that factually correct statement isn't really as provocative.
Long story short, age is not a first order factor. Any components which would have fallen into this characterization have already been replaced.
Our data travels at the speed of our people. ;)