Sadly, untrue where political parties are concerned.
Hrm. if for you the validity of a message depends on which party is bringing the message then you are sadly enough part of the reason why politics in the USA is in such a sad state.
What people consider more important (a valid message or a charismatic politician) is an entirely different matter, it in no way whatsoever changes (in)validity of the message.
Of course it's nonsensical. That's how we know that the value (the real value, the stuff that you can actually use) is in the software, not in the support. It's not me trying to suggest that support is intrinsically valuable, it's you...
Support on its own has no value, it only has value in combination with whatever is being supported. Since people generally buy support for things they actually use, your point might be true, but has no relevance whatsoever.
I own a small-ish business. In no way, shape, or form, is support more important to me than quality software. If I have to make support calls, that's lost time and money. The second software malfunctions, is the second you start losing money. No question about it. I will pay multiples more for a product that requires little to no support, than I will for a product that has good support.
Good support does not compensate lack of quality, absolutely true.
That said, there is no bugfree software, it is a theoretical impossibility, and as a consequence there will be times when you need support. It better be good when you need it.
When you are not a small business, you get to deal with lots of additional issues, and a 'cover my ass' type of support contract is rather desirable there, esp. when your 'expert' employee(s) just decided they found a better job, ended up under a train, jumped from the nearest tower, or become permanently unavailable for other reasons.
Think of it this way - if someone gives you Fedora without support, you can probably still do what you needed to do. If someone gives you Redhat Support, without actually giving you Redhat, you can't do anything except talk to the Support Line all day. That's what I meant by the value really being in the software.
Your problem is that you only consider the technical side of the argument, that is not how business decisions are taken howver.
No, for some of my customers Fedora is not an option even if it works technically for the simple reason that it lacks certifications they need and because it does not come with the kind of support on which you can build an SLA.
Getting support on a product you are not using makes no sense, so that part of your argument is nonsensical.
Is it news, or does it matter, that a progressive lobby is lobbying for progressive agendas?
No, the news is what they are saying, not that they are saying something.
Not trolling. It's the same as saying "Conservative Lobby Lobbying for Conservative Agenda".
And that would still be irrelevant for whatever they said.
Also, if you insist on discussing who those people are, you may want begin with realizing that such lobbying in the UK is quite different from lobbying in the USA.
Would anyone be bothered if I was pointing out that some Slashdot article originates from a Microsoft shill?
Bothered? not really, since it would still be irrelevant.
I guess I should never point out that Slashdot-compatible agenda is being disseminated by a lobbyist; that's asking for it...
If you were pointing out some things on actual content instead of by trying to stick some kind of label on the lobbyist, then you'd contribute to the discussion. As it is, you don't.
The message is just fine and valid with me, but the impact of the message has a lot to do with the messenger.
Only when the messenger is held to be more important then the message. If you believe that to be true, then go ahead, but from your own post I do get the impression you understand why that is flawed.
If you read around a little bit, the majority are talking about who's right it is to take away rights, and no one's talking about the message.
Oh, but that is part of the statement mr. Brown made, and pointing out why he might argue that way and why you think it wrong is quite fine. You might even end up pointing out their political affiniation in a way that is relevant.
That's because everybody (around here) already agrees that copyright laws should be updated. No one's getting excited about the prospect of the UK changing its copyright laws. That's because the messenger is a lobbyist, and no one's certain about the message's impact on the government.
Uh no, that is because the issue of if the government can grant rights or not is a bigger issue to many people here. mr. Brown likely believes what he says because of his political background, but that background still does not change anything about if he is right or not, it just creates some expectations about other things he might also believe in.
I think this point was made early in the discussion along the lines of "think tanks keep saying this, but it's not getting done".
Yep, so dismissing them because they are 'progressive leftist lobbyists' is the answer? Or would the answer be to get a government in place that cares a bit more about those things when next elections arrive? Would the answer be making sure enough people know and talk about this so politicians have to somewhat care?
Also, there are some specific things proposed by this thinktank, which are interesting to discuss to see if they'd solve the current issues with copyright.
So I think, even if the modders thought I was trolling, that no one's getting excited about a progressive lobby lobbying for a progressive agenda. No need to be spiteful because you think you hear someone ignoring your holy truths. Maybe I'm just ignoring the messenger, and not the message
I didn't mod you down, and I rather answer instead of moderating. That said, you likely got the troll moderation because painting the messenger black is a well known way of trying to distract attention from the message. It is seldom used by people who actually care about content and argumentation, and using it when you also happen to agree with the message is pretty silly.
The name of the messenger is irrelevant for the validity of the message.
The political affiniation of the messenger may at best have some relevance for judging the exact wording and portrayed importance of the message, but still has zero to do with its validity.
What you are doing is suggesting that people should ignore the message because of the messenger. I really hope you do understand how ignorant that is...
But when you make them use like 8 digit passwords with letters, special characters and at least one capital letter they will immediately start writing them down.
Requiring special characters, capital letters and such just makes the keyspace smaller and makes it easier to do a brute-force attack on a password. The only somewhat sensible requirement in there is a minimum length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR - "Despite widespread confusion there does not seem to be any open source implementation to decompress newer than version 2.0 RAR archives (7-zip uses a proprietary plugin under "unRAR license" for decompression)." - I suspect that if an open-source RAR archiver/unarchiver existed, it would be in Gentoo Portage, but only the "official" binary-only RAR implementation is.
The source code of UnRAR utility is freeware. This means:
1. All copyrights to RAR and the utility UnRAR are exclusively
owned by the author - Alexander Roshal.
2. The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR
archives without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used
to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
Distribution of modified UnRAR sources in separate form or as a
part of other software is permitted, provided that it is clearly
stated in the documentation and source comments that the code may
not be used to develop a RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver.
3. The UnRAR utility may be freely distributed. It is allowed
to distribute UnRAR inside of other software packages.
This contains a restriction on how you can use this source which makes it incompatible with the GPL, but there is definitely source code available to extract rar archives, also for rar versions newer then 2, so no, you do not need a 'binary only, proprietary plugin' for this.
In any case, yes, thanks to the artists for giving us this music to listen to.
There I completely agree.
A big "fuck you" to all those poser nerds, who ain't 1337 enough to respect nerdcore. You're all just frontin', yo!
Ah yes, since their taste doesn't match yours they suck? And you complain about them saying you suck because your taste doesn't match theirs? Pot, meet Kettle...
At any rate, I don't like hip hop, so I won't listen to this either. Only thing is that I'm not going around telling others how badly it sucks, rather, if you enjoy it, all the better, but you should also respect others who happen to dislike it.
Conceptually, such attacks have been known on various platforms for a long time, but seldom considered very relevant because of there being easier attack vectors or practical attacks requiring already having the ability to run your own kernel-mode code. There exist systems that guard against it I'm sure, and there are various ways to guard against it.
It just surprises me that Vista didn't guard against it so far because of it being such a well known concept, and even if you didn't know the concept, it should still be glaringly obvious from reading up on the implementation of paged virtual memory.
And on top of that, many a sound chip nowadays only does 48khz samplerate, which means you get some crappy resampling at least once, and probably twice.
So, the way to achieve this is by changing contents in the pagefile by writing disk sectors directly.
If such an obvious bypass has not been considered, how many other such issues exist that are yet undiscovered?
Then, the supposed 'fix' is to disallow writing raw disk sectors for any non kernel code. This will only work when not allowing for things like disk editors and recovery tools, because those would need ways to bypass this and this just opens up new attack vectors.
People use HTML (not always in the way it is supposed to be used of course..), and people generally don't use xhtml
There are 2 ways to deal with this if this isn't what you want..
1. Make HTML even more crappy and hope people stop using it (they will, in favor of the older less crappy version of course) 2. Make using XHTML easier and more attractive.
I don't see how you accomplish 2. by changing HTML
If you're comparing the average mp3/acc (which tends to be 192kbps these days) to cassette tapes, then you need to go back and relisten to your cassette tapes, because you are FAR off base. Even as an audio engineer, many times I have to really listen to hear the inconsistancies of mp3s. I'm not saying they're perfect, but there are many other much more important things to worry about: namely the quality of the player, DAC, amplifier, and speakers. Cassette tapes leave loud tape hiss and have a highly degradated frequency/response curve, FAR worse than the slight flanging you hear with standard quality mp3s.
I completely agree with your comment about the importance of good playback equipment before worrying too much about the quality of the medium. The same however applies to casette tapes, and there the type, age and accuracy of production of the casette mechanism and tape also play a big role. A 'high-end' consumer casette player employing hx-pro and dolby-s with a very good new metal oxide tape, comes very close to CD quality in most measurable aspects, and can surpass it quite a bit in frequency response. The studio decks you as a sound engineer should have access to should be able to do a bit better still. Of course most people don't own high-end players and tapes, not to mention degradation of tape due to age and bad handling.
Digital has many benefits, but quality isn't one of them. As a general rule, anything that's digital is of vastly inferior quality to its analogue counterpart by definition.
This is true, but of limited practical value.
The problem is that making a perfect analog reproduction is inmensely expensive, and with current analog electronics actually impossible due to the inherent noise of current technology analog electronics.
For practical applications, you can exactly quantify the losses of digital reproduction, while you can't in the analog case. You can make estimates, but unless you measure it, there will be uncertainty due to tolerance of components.
For this reason alone it is already easier to create somewhat good digital playback equipment.
With enough money and know-how, you can in many cases buy or build equipment that provides a better analog reproduction then any consumer grade digital media can provide, but for the same money, you can often also obtain much better digital equipment, and in both cases your next problem will be obtaining high enough quality media.
Whatever sounds more pleasant to your ears is an entirely seperate discussion.
First of all, a lot of music is used as 'background' rather then being listened to consiously, and often in environments that have a lot of background noise themslves usually.
Dropouts on tapes and scratches and dust on records are still quite noticable even on a low volume and when not listening consiously. This is not the case with the typical artifacts of audio compression like mp3 uses, so for many people mp3s provide a noticably better quality then what came before the CD.
I have a nice homebuilt amp and speakers, but nothing really special, and many visitors to my place comment on how old fashioned records that I play at times sound better then CDs on their home equipment (and no, they don't sound better then CDs on my equipment in general, but with some notable exceptions like the first Tracy Chapman album), and I would not be surprised if the difference between a somewhat decent mp3 file and a CD is barely noticable on the equipment most people use.
The manufacturer would, unnecessarily, jack up the price though.
You'd almost think that they do that anyway.. besides, a blade should not last too long, that is bad for the replacement market, which is where the real money is.
you can't use the old handles with the new blades, which is actually a new trick from them - usually you can just buy the new cartiridges
I have 3 blade cartridges for the older sensor handle, and I'm pretty sure I've seen them for the even older contour handle as well. (oh, and both are in my experience worse then the 2 blade versions, and approx 20% more expensive)
Yes, a larger chip definitely has disadvantages, but the doubling of size is unavoidable when doubling what is in there. WHat did they expect, 2 cores taking as little space as a single core?
Depends on what territory you are talking about. That which lies within the internationally recognized borders of Israel is theirs, but none of the occupied territories will ever become theirs for as long as they are a party to things like the Geneva conventions and the UN founding charter.
How many times do they have to fight off agression from the middle east and just keep letting them near their borders?
This is why occupation of neighboring territories is in their case legitimate. This does not mean that annexation of those territories is legitimate however. Also, occupation comes with obligations.
even beyond that, why is it you seem to think the palestinians didn't have a choice. Many of those tax paying, unrepresented palestinians(well, now their parents) were given the option of full citizenship in Israel proper in 1948 and almost all turned it down. You reap what you sow. The Palestinians gambled that the Arab coutries would destroy Israel and take that land (notice I didnt' say take back the land, as they have no claim to it under international law).
And neither did Israel have a claim on that land. That it was intended to be used for the creation of a state of Israel does not change this, their declaration was unilateral, and not recognized initially.
Many of the people who decided to stay and become citizen are second class citizens, I suggest you go look in Israel today and go roam the country with some citizens of Arab origin and you will understand why I say that. Alternatively, go get yourself informed from the many sources available on the net and otherwise.
You also simply ignore the pleight of individuals involved over an extremely one-sided view of what is 'right', but forget that it is those individuals that cause much of the direct attacks on Israel now.
It was land that people were living on, and that land was taken from them. Regardless of international law, this is simply a sure way to get people upset and a very sure way of having trouble with those people for the forseeable future.
I'll ask you, if people who lived in part of your country a long time ago would return there now, start buying up as much property as they can with the intention to declare their own state, what would your response be? Just let them do it and move away yourself? Become part of it?
Before you go off on a rant about 'gamblers' I'd seriously consider such things. You have zero chance of understanding the situation, let alone of having a founded opinion, if you don't consider all sides of the issue.
I don't feel sorry for a gambler who loses everything in a casino. I see no reason to shed these tears on Palestinians that were gambling on something much worse happening when they had the option of full inclusion into the Israeli state.
Of course you don't. You never even tried to understand the other side of this issue.
I suggest you get interested in solving things instead of putting blame squarely on the party you don't like, at least if you want to have some meaningfull discussion here.
Hey, sorry for replying twice, but I found some background info that I wanted to share with you.
This was a movement that consisted by and large of immigrants buying land and living on the land they bought. You bring this up as if this is some sort of provocation. The situation was not militarized until much later, in reaction to Arab atrocities against the Jews who had been there and these settlers buying land.
If I follow both my memory and for example this wikipedia article, it seems that there was a bit more to the zionist movement, and that it wasn't exactly a monolithic movement that had one peacefull policy only.
Specifically:
Ideologically, Revisionism advocated the creation of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River, that is, a state which would include the present-day West Bank and all or part of the modern state of Jordan, which was split off of Mandatory Palestine in 1922 in response to Arab resentment of the Balfour Declaration. All three streams, Centrists who advocated a British-style liberal democracy, and the streams who would become Irgun and Lehi, supported Jewish settlement on both sides of the river (and so did some parts of Labour Zionism, such as Ben Gurion's Mapai party), but in many cases, differed on how this would be achieved. Jabotinsky wanted to gain the help of Britain, while Lehi and the Irgun wanted to conquer both sides independently of the British. The Irgun stream of Revisionism opposed power-sharing with Arabs. Jabotinsky's statements were ambiguous on the topic of "transfer" (expulsion of the Arabs). In some writings he supported the notion, but only as an act of self-defense, in others he argued that Arabs should be included in the liberal democratic society that he was advocating, and in others still, he completely disregarded the potency of Arab resistance to Jewish settlement, and stated that settlement should continue, and the Arabs be ignored. Most Zionist groups favored, tacitly, at least a partial transfer of the Arab population out of Mandatory Palestine in order to ensure a Jewish majority.
I think esp. the last bit is pretty important to keep in mind. Note that this predates the 1929 massacres. Also note that there was a substantial group of people opposed to this idea of 'transfer', but also that those in favor of this 'transfer' were not just revisionist zionists, but were to be found in many of the different zionist groups.
It is also somewhat interesting to note the links between Palestinian nationalists and nazi Germany while at the same time there seem to have been links between the Zionist movement and fascist Italy. I think those who point correctly at the Muffi of Jarusalem at the time should keep that one in mind.
At any rate, all I want to say here is that the whole Palestine issue is very complicated, and that it is pretty much impossible to point at one side and blame them for it. What is more, putting blame on one or either side is simply not going to do anything for solving the issues there.
Thanks for the good discussion btw, maybe a bit heated at times, but I learned new things on the way, got reminded of some things I forgot, and again put some time and thought into the situation, and I believe you did the same. I appreciate such discussions.
I apologise. I honestly thought you were the AC who posted the 10 reasons. I find that people so have such a strong opinion about things (read: they are rude) need a strong reply.
Apologies accepted:)
I also think you misread my tone somewhat.
Maybe.
I wasn't referring to you specifically. But nevertheless, that's what they do. Whether it means exporting their entertainment culture, or exporting their conservative war culture, the world gets fed up. That's why so many people dislike the US. If they weren't so dominant, people wouldn't care. It doesn't matter if it's a country, a person, a religion, if it's constantly in the spotlight, there will always a culture against them.
In my native language (Dutch) there is a saying about high trees catching lots of wind. Yes, being in the spotlights makes that you get talked about.
If you give lots of cause for talking good about you and little cause for talking bad, then being in the spotlights may still get an anti culture, but you give them little to prey on.
The problem in case of the USA is that their foreign policies over the last few decades at least give quite some food for bad talk, and give quite some food for an anti culture.
Accepting this because you get an anti culture anyway is not right I believe.
It's hard to devote your country to peaceful pursuits when you constantly have to fend off attacks from neighboring countries that are so ill-minded that extermination of the Israelis is a top foreign policy goal.
Definitely, but the consequence is that they cannot produce much wealth. That they are capable of it in theory, sure.
They recently had to spend a lot of money to fend off an invasion by Lebanon a few months ago.
Opinions on that action differ.. Doesn't matter for the issue you are pointing at however. Yes, they definitely have trouble with (part of) their neighbors, and as things are, constantly live with either open war or the threat of war.
The Palestians, in a "fair and open" election, recently affirmed that wiping out 5 million Jews was "Job One". Even "peaceful" Dubai still states it wants this.
Two issues here.
First of all, Hamas has this as a stated goal, but that does not mean that the majority of palestinians voted for them because of this. Rather, Hamas does make a noticable change to their daily life by providing things like support for the poor, healthcare and education. This is a lot more then basicly anyone in charge of their territories has done for them in decades, and is the primary reason why Hamas won the elections.
Then, there are a lot of places in the middle east that want Israel gone, that is simply a matter of fact. This includes many of the supposed western friendly countries there as well indeed.
Israel found itself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Politically and socially the middle east did never recover from the decline and collapse of the Ottoman empire, and Israel is an easy way of distracting attention away from their internal problems. Solving the remaining issues in Palestina itself will not change this directly, but it will make it more difficult. This however does not mean that the issues in Palestina are not worth solving.
When having large groups of poorly educated people and adding social injustice together with oppressive and unstable governments, and you have a very nice explosive mix. Europeans who know a bit about the history of their continent may recognize some of the ingredients. Arguing that a specific religion is causing this? well, it is an often used tool in such situations, but not the cause.
One basic good idea of language is that we do not personally re-interpret words on our own.
Maybe I do use this interpretation for a very specific reason? Those people are closely related, and so is their history.
Muhammed (peace be unto him) ordered them wiped out (thousands of people), and put in place decrees where to this day it is pretty much illegal to be Jewish there.
This concerns one very specific group of jews, not jews in general (eventho that is how people there seem to interpret it nowadays)
Long before the Crusades, the indiginous Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean were subjected to bloodbaths and forced conversions by the new Muslim empire.
Well yes, after having been kicked around for a few hundred years by the Romans. Who again destroyed the temple? Who banned them from Jarusalem? Oh, and lets not forget, who accused (and at times still accuse) them of killing christ and calls for their punishment?
For many hundreds of years onward, these people were subjected to the foreign occupation (Arab empire then Ottomans) that had little respect for them.
That is not completely untrue, but it is a very limited and one-sided view on things.
I'd like to point out that quite some jews who fled Europe in the centuries after this found a home in the muslim caliphate in Spain and later in northern Africa and what is now known as Palestine.
Like it or not, they have been despised and kicked around by virtually all people they ever came in contact with, regardless of religion. They also have found support among those same groups at different times.
They are not alone in this either, ask some Roma people about it when you get a chance..
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, untrue where political parties are concerned.
Hrm. if for you the validity of a message depends on which party is bringing the message then you are sadly enough part of the reason why politics in the USA is in such a sad state.
What people consider more important (a valid message or a charismatic politician) is an entirely different matter, it in no way whatsoever changes (in)validity of the message.
Of course it's nonsensical. That's how we know that the value (the real value, the stuff that you can actually use) is in the software, not in the support. It's not me trying to suggest that support is intrinsically valuable, it's you...
Support on its own has no value, it only has value in combination with whatever is being supported. Since people generally buy support for things they actually use, your point might be true, but has no relevance whatsoever.
I own a small-ish business. In no way, shape, or form, is support more important to me than quality software. If I have to make support calls, that's lost time and money. The second software malfunctions, is the second you start losing money. No question about it. I will pay multiples more for a product that requires little to no support, than I will for a product that has good support.
Good support does not compensate lack of quality, absolutely true.
That said, there is no bugfree software, it is a theoretical impossibility, and as a consequence there will be times when you need support. It better be good when you need it.
When you are not a small business, you get to deal with lots of additional issues, and a 'cover my ass' type of support contract is rather desirable there, esp. when your 'expert' employee(s) just decided they found a better job, ended up under a train, jumped from the nearest tower, or become permanently unavailable for other reasons.
Think of it this way - if someone gives you Fedora without support, you can probably still do what you needed to do. If someone gives you Redhat Support, without actually giving you Redhat, you can't do anything except talk to the Support Line all day. That's what I meant by the value really being in the software.
Your problem is that you only consider the technical side of the argument, that is not how business decisions are taken howver.
No, for some of my customers Fedora is not an option even if it works technically for the simple reason that it lacks certifications they need and because it does not come with the kind of support on which you can build an SLA.
Getting support on a product you are not using makes no sense, so that part of your argument is nonsensical.
I should make myself clear:
That helps for having a good discussion..
Is it news, or does it matter, that a progressive lobby is lobbying for progressive agendas?
No, the news is what they are saying, not that they are saying something.
Not trolling. It's the same as saying "Conservative Lobby Lobbying for Conservative Agenda".
And that would still be irrelevant for whatever they said.
Also, if you insist on discussing who those people are, you may want begin with realizing that such lobbying in the UK is quite different from lobbying in the USA.
Would anyone be bothered if I was pointing out that some Slashdot article originates from a Microsoft shill?
Bothered? not really, since it would still be irrelevant.
I guess I should never point out that Slashdot-compatible agenda is being disseminated by a lobbyist; that's asking for it...
If you were pointing out some things on actual content instead of by trying to stick some kind of label on the lobbyist, then you'd contribute to the discussion. As it is, you don't.
The message is just fine and valid with me, but the impact of the message has a lot to do with the messenger.
Only when the messenger is held to be more important then the message. If you believe that to be true, then go ahead, but from your own post I do get the impression you understand why that is flawed.
If you read around a little bit, the majority are talking about who's right it is to take away rights, and no one's talking about the message.
Oh, but that is part of the statement mr. Brown made, and pointing out why he might argue that way and why you think it wrong is quite fine. You might even end up pointing out their political affiniation in a way that is relevant.
That's because everybody (around here) already agrees that copyright laws should be updated. No one's getting excited about the prospect of the UK changing its copyright laws. That's because the messenger is a lobbyist, and no one's certain about the message's impact on the government.
Uh no, that is because the issue of if the government can grant rights or not is a bigger issue to many people here. mr. Brown likely believes what he says because of his political background, but that background still does not change anything about if he is right or not, it just creates some expectations about other things he might also believe in.
I think this point was made early in the discussion along the lines of "think tanks keep saying this, but it's not getting done".
Yep, so dismissing them because they are 'progressive leftist lobbyists' is the answer? Or would the answer be to get a government in place that cares a bit more about those things when next elections arrive? Would the answer be making sure enough people know and talk about this so politicians have to somewhat care?
Also, there are some specific things proposed by this thinktank, which are interesting to discuss to see if they'd solve the current issues with copyright.
So I think, even if the modders thought I was trolling, that no one's getting excited about a progressive lobby lobbying for a progressive agenda. No need to be spiteful because you think you hear someone ignoring your holy truths. Maybe I'm just ignoring the messenger, and not the message
I didn't mod you down, and I rather answer instead of moderating. That said, you likely got the troll moderation because painting the messenger black is a well known way of trying to distract attention from the message. It is seldom used by people who actually care about content and argumentation, and using it when you also happen to agree with the message is pretty silly.
Just calling a spade a spade.
The name of the messenger is irrelevant for the validity of the message.
The political affiniation of the messenger may at best have some relevance for judging the exact wording and portrayed importance of the message, but still has zero to do with its validity.
What you are doing is suggesting that people should ignore the message because of the messenger. I really hope you do understand how ignorant that is...
But when you make them use like 8 digit passwords with letters, special characters and at least one capital letter they will immediately start writing them down.
Requiring special characters, capital letters and such just makes the keyspace smaller and makes it easier to do a brute-force attack on a password. The only somewhat sensible requirement in there is a minimum length.
This is not accurate.
Download and extract http://files1.rarlab.com/rar/unrarsrc-3.6.8.tar.g
This contains a restriction on how you can use this source which makes it incompatible with the GPL, but there is definitely source code available to extract rar archives, also for rar versions newer then 2, so no, you do not need a 'binary only, proprietary plugin' for this.
In any case, yes, thanks to the artists for giving us this music to listen to.
There I completely agree.
A big "fuck you" to all those poser nerds, who ain't 1337 enough to respect nerdcore. You're all just frontin', yo!
Ah yes, since their taste doesn't match yours they suck? And you complain about them saying you suck because your taste doesn't match theirs? Pot, meet Kettle...
At any rate, I don't like hip hop, so I won't listen to this either. Only thing is that I'm not going around telling others how badly it sucks, rather, if you enjoy it, all the better, but you should also respect others who happen to dislike it.
Conceptually, such attacks have been known on various platforms for a long time, but seldom considered very relevant because of there being easier attack vectors or practical attacks requiring already having the ability to run your own kernel-mode code. There exist systems that guard against it I'm sure, and there are various ways to guard against it.
It just surprises me that Vista didn't guard against it so far because of it being such a well known concept, and even if you didn't know the concept, it should still be glaringly obvious from reading up on the implementation of paged virtual memory.
And on top of that, many a sound chip nowadays only does 48khz samplerate, which means you get some crappy resampling at least once, and probably twice.
So, the way to achieve this is by changing contents in the pagefile by writing disk sectors directly.
If such an obvious bypass has not been considered, how many other such issues exist that are yet undiscovered?
Then, the supposed 'fix' is to disallow writing raw disk sectors for any non kernel code. This will only work when not allowing for things like disk editors and recovery tools, because those would need ways to bypass this and this just opens up new attack vectors.
People use HTML (not always in the way it is supposed to be used of course..), and people generally don't use xhtml
There are 2 ways to deal with this if this isn't what you want..
1. Make HTML even more crappy and hope people stop using it (they will, in favor of the older less crappy version of course)
2. Make using XHTML easier and more attractive.
I don't see how you accomplish 2. by changing HTML
If you're comparing the average mp3/acc (which tends to be 192kbps these days) to cassette tapes, then you need to go back and relisten to your cassette tapes, because you are FAR off base. Even as an audio engineer, many times I have to really listen to hear the inconsistancies of mp3s. I'm not saying they're perfect, but there are many other much more important things to worry about: namely the quality of the player, DAC, amplifier, and speakers. Cassette tapes leave loud tape hiss and have a highly degradated frequency/response curve, FAR worse than the slight flanging you hear with standard quality mp3s.
I completely agree with your comment about the importance of good playback equipment before worrying too much about the quality of the medium. The same however applies to casette tapes, and there the type, age and accuracy of production of the casette mechanism and tape also play a big role. A 'high-end' consumer casette player employing hx-pro and dolby-s with a very good new metal oxide tape, comes very close to CD quality in most measurable aspects, and can surpass it quite a bit in frequency response. The studio decks you as a sound engineer should have access to should be able to do a bit better still. Of course most people don't own high-end players and tapes, not to mention degradation of tape due to age and bad handling.
Digital has many benefits, but quality isn't one of them. As a general rule, anything that's digital is of vastly inferior quality to its analogue counterpart by definition.
This is true, but of limited practical value.
The problem is that making a perfect analog reproduction is inmensely expensive, and with current analog electronics actually impossible due to the inherent noise of current technology analog electronics.
For practical applications, you can exactly quantify the losses of digital reproduction, while you can't in the analog case. You can make estimates, but unless you measure it, there will be uncertainty due to tolerance of components.
For this reason alone it is already easier to create somewhat good digital playback equipment.
With enough money and know-how, you can in many cases buy or build equipment that provides a better analog reproduction then any consumer grade digital media can provide, but for the same money, you can often also obtain much better digital equipment, and in both cases your next problem will be obtaining high enough quality media.
Whatever sounds more pleasant to your ears is an entirely seperate discussion.
First of all, a lot of music is used as 'background' rather then being listened to consiously, and often in environments that have a lot of background noise themslves usually.
Dropouts on tapes and scratches and dust on records are still quite noticable even on a low volume and when not listening consiously. This is not the case with the typical artifacts of audio compression like mp3 uses, so for many people mp3s provide a noticably better quality then what came before the CD.
I have a nice homebuilt amp and speakers, but nothing really special, and many visitors to my place comment on how old fashioned records that I play at times sound better then CDs on their home equipment (and no, they don't sound better then CDs on my equipment in general, but with some notable exceptions like the first Tracy Chapman album), and I would not be surprised if the difference between a somewhat decent mp3 file and a CD is barely noticable on the equipment most people use.
Abd the 370 was the second generation of such machines, the first implementation was on the 360
The manufacturer would, unnecessarily, jack up the price though.
You'd almost think that they do that anyway.. besides, a blade should not last too long, that is bad for the replacement market, which is where the real money is.
you can't use the old handles with the new blades, which is actually a new trick from them - usually you can just buy the new cartiridges
I have 3 blade cartridges for the older sensor handle, and I'm pretty sure I've seen them for the even older contour handle as well. (oh, and both are in my experience worse then the 2 blade versions, and approx 20% more expensive)
Yes, a larger chip definitely has disadvantages, but the doubling of size is unavoidable when doubling what is in there. WHat did they expect, 2 cores taking as little space as a single core?
so when does the territory become Israel's?
Depends on what territory you are talking about. That which lies within the internationally recognized borders of Israel is theirs, but none of the occupied territories will ever become theirs for as long as they are a party to things like the Geneva conventions and the UN founding charter.
How many times do they have to fight off agression from the middle east and just keep letting them near their borders?
This is why occupation of neighboring territories is in their case legitimate. This does not mean that annexation of those territories is legitimate however. Also, occupation comes with obligations.
even beyond that, why is it you seem to think the palestinians didn't have a choice. Many of those tax paying, unrepresented palestinians(well, now their parents) were given the option of full citizenship in Israel proper in 1948 and almost all turned it down. You reap what you sow. The Palestinians gambled that the Arab coutries would destroy Israel and take that land (notice I didnt' say take back the land, as they have no claim to it under international law).
And neither did Israel have a claim on that land. That it was intended to be used for the creation of a state of Israel does not change this, their declaration was unilateral, and not recognized initially.
Many of the people who decided to stay and become citizen are second class citizens, I suggest you go look in Israel today and go roam the country with some citizens of Arab origin and you will understand why I say that. Alternatively, go get yourself informed from the many sources available on the net and otherwise.
You also simply ignore the pleight of individuals involved over an extremely one-sided view of what is 'right', but forget that it is those individuals that cause much of the direct attacks on Israel now.
It was land that people were living on, and that land was taken from them. Regardless of international law, this is simply a sure way to get people upset and a very sure way of having trouble with those people for the forseeable future.
I'll ask you, if people who lived in part of your country a long time ago would return there now, start buying up as much property as they can with the intention to declare their own state, what would your response be? Just let them do it and move away yourself? Become part of it?
Before you go off on a rant about 'gamblers' I'd seriously consider such things. You have zero chance of understanding the situation, let alone of having a founded opinion, if you don't consider all sides of the issue.
I don't feel sorry for a gambler who loses everything in a casino. I see no reason to shed these tears on Palestinians that were gambling on something much worse happening when they had the option of full inclusion into the Israeli state.
Of course you don't. You never even tried to understand the other side of this issue.
I suggest you get interested in solving things instead of putting blame squarely on the party you don't like, at least if you want to have some meaningfull discussion here.
Hey, sorry for replying twice, but I found some background info that I wanted to share with you.
This was a movement that consisted by and large of immigrants buying land and living on the land they bought. You bring this up as if this is some sort of provocation. The situation was not militarized until much later, in reaction to Arab atrocities against the Jews who had been there and these settlers buying land.
If I follow both my memory and for example this wikipedia article, it seems that there was a bit more to the zionist movement, and that it wasn't exactly a monolithic movement that had one peacefull policy only.
Specifically:
Ideologically, Revisionism advocated the creation of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River, that is, a state which would include the present-day West Bank and all or part of the modern state of Jordan, which was split off of Mandatory Palestine in 1922 in response to Arab resentment of the Balfour Declaration. All three streams, Centrists who advocated a British-style liberal democracy, and the streams who would become Irgun and Lehi, supported Jewish settlement on both sides of the river (and so did some parts of Labour Zionism, such as Ben Gurion's Mapai party), but in many cases, differed on how this would be achieved. Jabotinsky wanted to gain the help of Britain, while Lehi and the Irgun wanted to conquer both sides independently of the British. The Irgun stream of Revisionism opposed power-sharing with Arabs. Jabotinsky's statements were ambiguous on the topic of "transfer" (expulsion of the Arabs). In some writings he supported the notion, but only as an act of self-defense, in others he argued that Arabs should be included in the liberal democratic society that he was advocating, and in others still, he completely disregarded the potency of Arab resistance to Jewish settlement, and stated that settlement should continue, and the Arabs be ignored. Most Zionist groups favored, tacitly, at least a partial transfer of the Arab population out of Mandatory Palestine in order to ensure a Jewish majority.
I think esp. the last bit is pretty important to keep in mind. Note that this predates the 1929 massacres. Also note that there was a substantial group of people opposed to this idea of 'transfer', but also that those in favor of this 'transfer' were not just revisionist zionists, but were to be found in many of the different zionist groups.
It is also somewhat interesting to note the links between Palestinian nationalists and nazi Germany while at the same time there seem to have been links between the Zionist movement and fascist Italy. I think those who point correctly at the Muffi of Jarusalem at the time should keep that one in mind.
At any rate, all I want to say here is that the whole Palestine issue is very complicated, and that it is pretty much impossible to point at one side and blame them for it. What is more, putting blame on one or either side is simply not going to do anything for solving the issues there.
Thanks for the good discussion btw, maybe a bit heated at times, but I learned new things on the way, got reminded of some things I forgot, and again put some time and thought into the situation, and I believe you did the same. I appreciate such discussions.
I apologise. I honestly thought you were the AC who posted the 10 reasons. I find that people so have such a strong opinion about things (read: they are rude) need a strong reply.
:)
Apologies accepted
I also think you misread my tone somewhat.
Maybe.
I wasn't referring to you specifically. But nevertheless, that's what they do. Whether it means exporting their entertainment culture, or exporting their conservative war culture, the world gets fed up. That's why so many people dislike the US. If they weren't so dominant, people wouldn't care. It doesn't matter if it's a country, a person, a religion, if it's constantly in the spotlight, there will always a culture against them.
In my native language (Dutch) there is a saying about high trees catching lots of wind.
Yes, being in the spotlights makes that you get talked about.
If you give lots of cause for talking good about you and little cause for talking bad, then being in the spotlights may still get an anti culture, but you give them little to prey on.
The problem in case of the USA is that their foreign policies over the last few decades at least give quite some food for bad talk, and give quite some food for an anti culture.
Accepting this because you get an anti culture anyway is not right I believe.
It's hard to devote your country to peaceful pursuits when you constantly have to fend off attacks from neighboring countries that are so ill-minded that extermination of the Israelis is a top foreign policy goal.
Definitely, but the consequence is that they cannot produce much wealth. That they are capable of it in theory, sure.
They recently had to spend a lot of money to fend off an invasion by Lebanon a few months ago.
Opinions on that action differ.. Doesn't matter for the issue you are pointing at however. Yes, they definitely have trouble with (part of) their neighbors, and as things are, constantly live with either open war or the threat of war.
The Palestians, in a "fair and open" election, recently affirmed that wiping out 5 million Jews was "Job One". Even "peaceful" Dubai still states it wants this.
Two issues here.
First of all, Hamas has this as a stated goal, but that does not mean that the majority of palestinians voted for them because of this. Rather, Hamas does make a noticable change to their daily life by providing things like support for the poor, healthcare and education. This is a lot more then basicly anyone in charge of their territories has done for them in decades, and is the primary reason why Hamas won the elections.
Then, there are a lot of places in the middle east that want Israel gone, that is simply a matter of fact. This includes many of the supposed western friendly countries there as well indeed.
Israel found itself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Politically and socially the middle east did never recover from the decline and collapse of the Ottoman empire, and Israel is an easy way of distracting attention away from their internal problems. Solving the remaining issues in Palestina itself will not change this directly, but it will make it more difficult. This however does not mean that the issues in Palestina are not worth solving.
When having large groups of poorly educated people and adding social injustice together with oppressive and unstable governments, and you have a very nice explosive mix. Europeans who know a bit about the history of their continent may recognize some of the ingredients. Arguing that a specific religion is causing this? well, it is an often used tool in such situations, but not the cause.
One basic good idea of language is that we do not personally re-interpret words on our own.
Maybe I do use this interpretation for a very specific reason? Those people are closely related, and so is their history.
Muhammed (peace be unto him) ordered them wiped out (thousands of people), and put in place decrees where to this day it is pretty much illegal to be Jewish there.
This concerns one very specific group of jews, not jews in general (eventho that is how people there seem to interpret it nowadays)
Long before the Crusades, the indiginous Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean were subjected to bloodbaths and forced conversions by the new Muslim empire.
Well yes, after having been kicked around for a few hundred years by the Romans. Who again destroyed the temple? Who banned them from Jarusalem? Oh, and lets not forget, who accused (and at times still accuse) them of killing christ and calls for their punishment?
For many hundreds of years onward, these people were subjected to the foreign occupation (Arab empire then Ottomans) that had little respect for them.
That is not completely untrue, but it is a very limited and one-sided view on things.
I'd like to point out that quite some jews who fled Europe in the centuries after this found a home in the muslim caliphate in Spain and later in northern Africa and what is now known as Palestine.
Like it or not, they have been despised and kicked around by virtually all people they ever came in contact with, regardless of religion. They also have found support among those same groups at different times.
They are not alone in this either, ask some Roma people about it when you get a chance..