Actually, I am not sure that concept was what I was trying to describe but I will look into it. No one has previously corrected me, and the term you use does sound familiar, so I am sure I have run across it before and just stole it and reversed it to describe what I was seeing. (Perhaps being more ironic than I intended.)
Having not yet researched it, however, I must state, based on your comment and the one I received involving Marx (whom I have not studied in years) it sounds highly utopian and unreflective of general human nature. If so, I will have to abandon the description entirely. It is exactly the opposite of what I am attempting to describe.
While I think you have some legitimate points, lets not forget that, unless the state contracted outside of its normal search and rescue crews, the resources to search for the guy were already functioning and operational.
I would be curious to see how much additional expense was really accrued. The fact that the money to pay for the operation (fuel, wear and tear on equipment, salaries, etc) came from the "Search and Rescue" budget (I do not really know their specific accounting practices) rather than the maintenance, training, and personnel budgets do not mean that the tax-payer ACTUALLY incurred additional costs.
I want to be myself which means all these other things I should worry about but get in the way of me being 'me', I want someone else to take care of for me.
I frequently call those to whom you refer to "Communistic-Anarchists" to intentionally demonstrate the intenseness with which the contradictory beliefs are held. This may be original but I doubt it; I just don't remember having heard it. At any rate, it is difficult to explain what I mean be that but you have summed it up very succinctly. I usually explain by way of analogy and refer to a "Bloom County" cartoon (by Berkeley Breathed) where Opus is learning how to be a farmer. In one instance, he has to repeat with a straight face: "Tell those goomba's in Washington to get off my back... And, hurry up with my bail-out check!"
Eugene is even more so. It is a quack and a half listening to them.
Nope, not true. Unless directed to action by the government, a private entity CANNOT violate the 4th amendment. My understanding is that the telcos already had the information they turned over, so they did not violate the 4th. Now, if it turns out that the telcos were acting at the behest of the government in obtaining without warrant the information they eventually turned over, that would be a violation of the 4th, and none of that evidence could be used in court for a criminal conviction. (And yes, where DOES that leave the innocent citizen with his knickers around his ankles?) Anyway...
To expand on your example, if the police tell you to break into your neighbor's house to look for a kidnapped girl (because, presumably, they cannot get a warrant), you are violating the 4th amendment. If, however, you hear some cries for help, break in, and discover the kidnapped girl, and then drop the dime and tell the police, you are not violating the 4th amendment. Hell, the same holds true if you are breaking in to rob the place (or burglarize - I can never remember the difference between the two), discover the girl and drop the dime. (And yes, a more churlish pd might arrest you for breaking and entering but the arrest would not be for violating the 4th amendment.)
The claim of the parent, however, is also incorrect. You can sue anybody for anything. This is why the telcos want protection. They basically have us over a barrel and that type of presence in our lives produces a great responsibility in the opinion of many, if not most, people. Consequently, the threat of a civil lawsuit is a very real concern for the telcos, and also the government who does not want the further collection of this data to be hindered (rightly or wrongly).
"...and tracking of gun ownership. Believing that the true meaning of the second amendment is to protect the opportunity for armed rebellion and against government backed militias."
I don't know whether you are trolling, confused, mistyped, or I completely misunderstood you. If you believe that "the second amendment is to protect the opportunity for armed rebellion and against government backed militias", for which there is strong documentary evidence that you are correct, why on earth would you believe that tracking of firearm ownership is a good thing?
While one prays and hopes that there is never a need for armed insurrection against one's own government (and no, though many things deserve scrutiny, I don't believe that ANYTHING currently transpiring in the US even comes close to that necessity), to not only be unopposed to tracking firearm owners but actively support it seems, well... foolish. Please explain.
Although Bruce_the_Loon is correct about the screws (I think), I also saw that same documentary. Or, at least, one very similar. I recall them saying it was inferior rivets and that the Titanic may have actually withstood the impact if it had not been for the "unzipping" that occurred.
I wonder if what makes it news now is that it was a theory at that time, which has now been validated.
The GP's subject was issue discussions, specifically political. I was not referring to quotes or interviews. NPR is not afraid to quote any of these entities, particularly when they are being critical of Republicans. If NPR has actually started having representatives from these entities on their discussion panels then I am pleased and will confess that I have missed them and am curious about the subject matter. (I will note, however, that the CATO institute, at least, leans libertarian more than conservative and suspect that if CATO was involved the discussion it was one where the goals of libertarians and liberals are similar - albeit for entirely different reasons I am sure.)
When were any of them on a discussion panel and what was the subject? I am most curious.
Bullshit. NPR, unless actually reporting the news, which is very good, utilizes the following format almost every time they discuss an issue:
Rabid liberal, moderate liberal, and liberal moderator who explains the "conservative" position. The rabid liberal makes inane points that are whatever the current comic book left talking points are, the moderate liberal explains a rational but left of center position, and the moderator describes the conservative position but only in the most half-baked and ignorant terms "as she understands them".
Eventually, all agree that the rational moderate liberals perspective is probably the most reasonable and everyone is happy.
If you think NPR is fair and reasonable, I suspect you are a liberal (meaning social progressive).
Now Fox, on the other hand, took this format and replaced the liberal with a conservative. Except that nobody agrees on anything, except that liberals are doody-heads. Although the payback was fun for like 5 or 10 minutes, I really do think it would be... I don't know... informative and beneficial, perhaps rational even, to have a real discussion represented by articulate and knowledgeable (at least knowledgeable) people who can defend their position without hiding behind vitriol and/or victimization.
Regrettably, I chose the road more traveled so have no idea what this means. Looked up "automorphic forms"... yeah, that didn't help.
So, my question is: what does this MEAN? Are we closer to faster than light travel, anti-gravity hover-crafts, cold fusion, teleporters, a better burning light bulb, that 2+3 really does equal 5 (yeah, I least I got the prime number part), What?
Agreed. Seems to me that a machine that recorded a sequential number beside each vote, both of which could then be reproduced in both paper and read-only electronic form, ought to do the trick.
Each machine could be "calibrated" by a a bi-partisan calibration group who would pre-determined a particular sample number and voting order (equal of course). Each machine could then be validated by comparing the pre-determined sample against what was actually recorded. After that, look for absences in or additions to the sequence.
The biggest hurdle is that any code used has to be open for inspection to assure no chicanery. The code, by virtue of its performance requirements, should be relatively simple and the hardware, other than making it tamper proof, should be relatively cheap. (And by tamper proof, I mean unable to be tampered with without leaving evidence of the tampering - not indestructible.)
Unfortunately, the above suggests that there is little profit unless one can hide the simplicity behind a proprietary box. And it is the proprietary black box that is at issue with most people on/., not the possibility of producing a reliable voting machine.
How would you like to get a ticket in the mail a week after a police car driving by takes a photo of you jaywalking?
Too bad. Don't jaywalk. Or, better yet. Kick politicians in the nuts until they decriminalize jaywalking.
I am hopeful that as law-enforcement gets increasingly better at doing their jobs and at apprehending criminals, the people are going to say, "you know what, THAT is not a criminal action and I am tired of being busted for pedantic bullshit. I don't think I am interested in that being illegal anymore."
Until the dialog changes from what the government can do to what the government should do, nothing will change other than we all become criminals. Either way, don't let the politicians bullshit ya, they make the laws, not the cops.
You MUST be new here. If you feel confident about your karma, post a positive remark about President Bush with no hint of sarcasm. The responses your receive may assist you to not feel "so alone" on/.
Seriously though, am I the only one who thinks that we are on the cusp of a breakthrough - the ability of traditionally organized mechanized armed forces to effectively engage guerilla tactics?
Wish I had mod points, and you weren't an AC. If you are correct, 2008 (or whatever year this break-through occurs) should be the year that historians look back to when considering the moment/era that the monumental geo-political shift occurred wherein NO small group could ever again hope to stand up to a superpower. The possible repercussions, for good or ill, are staggering to consider.
Hush money for what? That George Soros and George Bush had an affair while coding the global domination shell back in the early 80's? I mean, the guy is connected as hell to REAL money (not the ridiculous millions and 10s of millions that you and I dream about). So, sure, he can fart away $100 million easy enough but why? What current connection does SCO have to anything?
Yep. Exactly like that. Now imagine the United States (since you have so caged the argument and completely ignored the roles that other nations have played) had LEGAL authority over you rather than just coercive authority. So now, if you don't comply with the will of the dictatorial US - on all of its issues, not just its fear-based ones - you go to prison or lose some of your country's GNP and sovereignty.
Don't think a world government will solve your problems, it will be like your current perception of the US on steroids. Or do you really think they will support YOUR agenda? If so, keep livin' the dream dude. I don't have any faith that another layer of government, one more level abstracted, will be of any benefit to me what-so-ever.
Look dude. Never claimed to represent them. The grandparent was wonder how they came up with a calculation because it had no reasonable basis that anyone could figure out. No, copyright is not the same thing as counterfeit. It was a practical example and stated as such because I know from first hand that law enforcement agencies tend to cite TM violations rather than copyright violations when seizing violative software because, legally, it is easier to demonstrate. Yes, I realize the thread is discussing copyright violations concerning music, not software. Mine was a speculative example. (Example: used in this context as in an analogy to something I know about to speculate about something I don't.)
Your pedantic fascination with picking apart my posts is... odd. Are you a lawyer for the RIAA and trying to deflect my SPECULATIONS by seizing on irrelevancies to discredit points that I was not making? If not, your sure sound like one.
Please read the thread and chill out.
I will give you the last word since I suspect you are the type of person that needs that. Take a breath and relax; you will live longer.
Entirely possible, hence my caveat that, to make it clearer, I am completely speculating.
I would point out, however, that I have worked extensively with copyright holders and trademark owners, including the RIAA and the MPAA acting as their representation. When law enforcement makes a seizure of articles, a counterfeit copy of Microsoft Office for example, both the industry and the government assign the amount that the industry was protected at the MSRP. So, while lawyers pull numbers out of their ass like everyone else and I have already indicated that I do not know for sure where the specific amounts came from, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. The calculation I describe is exactly the type of "quick and dirty" computing I see used in the field all the time to assess "harm to the industry".
I don't have any actual inside information but a master produces 100,000 copies of a CD in round figures. $15 * 100,000 = $1.5 million. Quite simple, really.
Professional counterfeiters really do obtain masters and engage in such counterfeiting actions. That said, however, it is noteworthy that the RIAA routinely fuzzes or flat-out ignores the distinction between a professional counterfeiters and "your" sister or "my" grandmother who downloads 10 or 20 songs for their own use but does so without paying the recording industry their desired fee.
Such extraordinarily disingenuous behavior is one of the reasons that I chose to side against the interests of the RIAA.
There's nothing magical about the components in an Apple laptop (probably using almost the same damn parts) that makes grounding and electricity work differently.
Well, not anymore. But when the Mac first came out, holy crap, nothing was standard.
Slashdot Mirror
I will download it tonight and see how it performs.
Having not yet researched it, however, I must state, based on your comment and the one I received involving Marx (whom I have not studied in years) it sounds highly utopian and unreflective of general human nature. If so, I will have to abandon the description entirely. It is exactly the opposite of what I am attempting to describe.
I would be curious to see how much additional expense was really accrued. The fact that the money to pay for the operation (fuel, wear and tear on equipment, salaries, etc) came from the "Search and Rescue" budget (I do not really know their specific accounting practices) rather than the maintenance, training, and personnel budgets do not mean that the tax-payer ACTUALLY incurred additional costs.
I frequently call those to whom you refer to "Communistic-Anarchists" to intentionally demonstrate the intenseness with which the contradictory beliefs are held. This may be original but I doubt it; I just don't remember having heard it. At any rate, it is difficult to explain what I mean be that but you have summed it up very succinctly. I usually explain by way of analogy and refer to a "Bloom County" cartoon (by Berkeley Breathed) where Opus is learning how to be a farmer. In one instance, he has to repeat with a straight face: "Tell those goomba's in Washington to get off my back... And, hurry up with my bail-out check!"
Eugene is even more so. It is a quack and a half listening to them.
Nope, not true. Unless directed to action by the government, a private entity CANNOT violate the 4th amendment. My understanding is that the telcos already had the information they turned over, so they did not violate the 4th. Now, if it turns out that the telcos were acting at the behest of the government in obtaining without warrant the information they eventually turned over, that would be a violation of the 4th, and none of that evidence could be used in court for a criminal conviction. (And yes, where DOES that leave the innocent citizen with his knickers around his ankles?) Anyway...
To expand on your example, if the police tell you to break into your neighbor's house to look for a kidnapped girl (because, presumably, they cannot get a warrant), you are violating the 4th amendment. If, however, you hear some cries for help, break in, and discover the kidnapped girl, and then drop the dime and tell the police, you are not violating the 4th amendment. Hell, the same holds true if you are breaking in to rob the place (or burglarize - I can never remember the difference between the two), discover the girl and drop the dime. (And yes, a more churlish pd might arrest you for breaking and entering but the arrest would not be for violating the 4th amendment.)
The claim of the parent, however, is also incorrect. You can sue anybody for anything. This is why the telcos want protection. They basically have us over a barrel and that type of presence in our lives produces a great responsibility in the opinion of many, if not most, people. Consequently, the threat of a civil lawsuit is a very real concern for the telcos, and also the government who does not want the further collection of this data to be hindered (rightly or wrongly).
I don't know whether you are trolling, confused, mistyped, or I completely misunderstood you. If you believe that "the second amendment is to protect the opportunity for armed rebellion and against government backed militias", for which there is strong documentary evidence that you are correct, why on earth would you believe that tracking of firearm ownership is a good thing?
While one prays and hopes that there is never a need for armed insurrection against one's own government (and no, though many things deserve scrutiny, I don't believe that ANYTHING currently transpiring in the US even comes close to that necessity), to not only be unopposed to tracking firearm owners but actively support it seems, well... foolish. Please explain.
I wonder if what makes it news now is that it was a theory at that time, which has now been validated.
(Not, of course, that it is anywhere near above board currently.)
The GP's subject was issue discussions, specifically political. I was not referring to quotes or interviews. NPR is not afraid to quote any of these entities, particularly when they are being critical of Republicans. If NPR has actually started having representatives from these entities on their discussion panels then I am pleased and will confess that I have missed them and am curious about the subject matter. (I will note, however, that the CATO institute, at least, leans libertarian more than conservative and suspect that if CATO was involved the discussion it was one where the goals of libertarians and liberals are similar - albeit for entirely different reasons I am sure.)
When were any of them on a discussion panel and what was the subject? I am most curious.
Bullshit. NPR, unless actually reporting the news, which is very good, utilizes the following format almost every time they discuss an issue:
Rabid liberal, moderate liberal, and liberal moderator who explains the "conservative" position. The rabid liberal makes inane points that are whatever the current comic book left talking points are, the moderate liberal explains a rational but left of center position, and the moderator describes the conservative position but only in the most half-baked and ignorant terms "as she understands them".
Eventually, all agree that the rational moderate liberals perspective is probably the most reasonable and everyone is happy.
If you think NPR is fair and reasonable, I suspect you are a liberal (meaning social progressive).
Now Fox, on the other hand, took this format and replaced the liberal with a conservative. Except that nobody agrees on anything, except that liberals are doody-heads. Although the payback was fun for like 5 or 10 minutes, I really do think it would be... I don't know... informative and beneficial, perhaps rational even, to have a real discussion represented by articulate and knowledgeable (at least knowledgeable) people who can defend their position without hiding behind vitriol and/or victimization.
So, my question is: what does this MEAN? Are we closer to faster than light travel, anti-gravity hover-crafts, cold fusion, teleporters, a better burning light bulb, that 2+3 really does equal 5 (yeah, I least I got the prime number part), What?
Each machine could be "calibrated" by a a bi-partisan calibration group who would pre-determined a particular sample number and voting order (equal of course). Each machine could then be validated by comparing the pre-determined sample against what was actually recorded. After that, look for absences in or additions to the sequence.
The biggest hurdle is that any code used has to be open for inspection to assure no chicanery. The code, by virtue of its performance requirements, should be relatively simple and the hardware, other than making it tamper proof, should be relatively cheap. (And by tamper proof, I mean unable to be tampered with without leaving evidence of the tampering - not indestructible.)
Unfortunately, the above suggests that there is little profit unless one can hide the simplicity behind a proprietary box. And it is the proprietary black box that is at issue with most people on /., not the possibility of producing a reliable voting machine.
Too bad. Don't jaywalk. Or, better yet. Kick politicians in the nuts until they decriminalize jaywalking.
I am hopeful that as law-enforcement gets increasingly better at doing their jobs and at apprehending criminals, the people are going to say, "you know what, THAT is not a criminal action and I am tired of being busted for pedantic bullshit. I don't think I am interested in that being illegal anymore."
Until the dialog changes from what the government can do to what the government should do, nothing will change other than we all become criminals. Either way, don't let the politicians bullshit ya, they make the laws, not the cops.
Pretentious.
Is this a trick question?
You MUST be new here. If you feel confident about your karma, post a positive remark about President Bush with no hint of sarcasm. The responses your receive may assist you to not feel "so alone" on /.
Wish I had mod points, and you weren't an AC. If you are correct, 2008 (or whatever year this break-through occurs) should be the year that historians look back to when considering the moment/era that the monumental geo-political shift occurred wherein NO small group could ever again hope to stand up to a superpower. The possible repercussions, for good or ill, are staggering to consider.
Hush money for what? That George Soros and George Bush had an affair while coding the global domination shell back in the early 80's? I mean, the guy is connected as hell to REAL money (not the ridiculous millions and 10s of millions that you and I dream about). So, sure, he can fart away $100 million easy enough but why? What current connection does SCO have to anything?
Don't think a world government will solve your problems, it will be like your current perception of the US on steroids. Or do you really think they will support YOUR agenda? If so, keep livin' the dream dude. I don't have any faith that another layer of government, one more level abstracted, will be of any benefit to me what-so-ever.
dps/cc LFrG, Kara - PST
Don't worry. I am sure it was just an oversight. Your feet should be warming up in no time.
Your pedantic fascination with picking apart my posts is... odd. Are you a lawyer for the RIAA and trying to deflect my SPECULATIONS by seizing on irrelevancies to discredit points that I was not making? If not, your sure sound like one.
Please read the thread and chill out.
I will give you the last word since I suspect you are the type of person that needs that. Take a breath and relax; you will live longer.
Entirely possible, hence my caveat that, to make it clearer, I am completely speculating.
I would point out, however, that I have worked extensively with copyright holders and trademark owners, including the RIAA and the MPAA acting as their representation. When law enforcement makes a seizure of articles, a counterfeit copy of Microsoft Office for example, both the industry and the government assign the amount that the industry was protected at the MSRP. So, while lawyers pull numbers out of their ass like everyone else and I have already indicated that I do not know for sure where the specific amounts came from, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. The calculation I describe is exactly the type of "quick and dirty" computing I see used in the field all the time to assess "harm to the industry".
Professional counterfeiters really do obtain masters and engage in such counterfeiting actions. That said, however, it is noteworthy that the RIAA routinely fuzzes or flat-out ignores the distinction between a professional counterfeiters and "your" sister or "my" grandmother who downloads 10 or 20 songs for their own use but does so without paying the recording industry their desired fee.
Such extraordinarily disingenuous behavior is one of the reasons that I chose to side against the interests of the RIAA.
Well, not anymore. But when the Mac first came out, holy crap, nothing was standard.