You forgot Heart of Gold. It's my personal favorite. His voice is a bit screechy and out of tune but he does have some good songs. I will admit that it is pretty funny that he complains about streaming services degrading the "quality" given the quality of his singing.
And you miss the bigger picture. Making it illegal for an honest citizen to print a 3D gun will not stop the criminals from doing it.
That is the biggest problem with gun control -- criminals do not obey laws.
You cannot see the forest for the trees.
This is ALL ABOUT buying time by making sharing research more difficult so they can improve detection technology. They know criminals will print them and they are not afraid of the single shot Liberator. They want to be ready to detect a highly reliable, multi-shot, semi or fully automatic, 3D printed firearm. They want to threaten those who would share their insights and improvements to slow development.
Here in the UK, it's pretty hard to get an illegal gun. You need connections - a contact in organized crime who can put you in touch with the right people. That means your common street gang member doesn't have a gun - they have to make do with knives. If 3D printed guns became more practical, every gangsta-wannabe would have one.
It's a US law/regulation. Guns are already easily available here. It's not a problem to get one. Availability is not the issue. And they are not afraid of a unreliable, single shot, kludge like the liberator and its ilk.
The Feds are scared that some bright boy genius will take existing plans and improve things with newer and improved 3D printing technology to make a highly reliable and effective, undetectable weapon. They don't give two shits if some UK hoodlum can suddenly print a Liberator and have an illegal handgun in London. They are worried about someone bringing something that works well and can't be detected on a plane or on a Federal property.
You miss the big picture. 3D printed guns are in their infancy. The powers-that-be are scared shitless that 3D printed guns will EVENTUALLY be way better than your conventional home built firearms.
Like you were supposed to when you started charging for cable. Who knows, you could make more money by offering a better product.
Yea, I miss the good old days. MTV actually played music (and no advertising). USA actually had programming all night (and it was weird stuff). TBS had black-and-white movies.
Now, get off my lawn
Ahh... I miss Rhonda Shear on USA.... Up... All night.
Why would you be willing to pay that much to watch a bunch of people/animals/real housewives running around talking to/mating with/assaulting each other? How can that be so entertaining you'd pay $100/month? I understand how TV dramas/wildlife programs/"reality" shows can be fun for the actors/animals/just awful human beings, I just don't get people paying money to watch others act in/be oblivious to/shamelessly mug for the camera in them.
To each his own?
I don't see anybody offering to spend $100 per month to watch the Kardashians, or Survivor, or Real Housewives of ($cityname) for a commercial free feed. That is the difference. Sports fan(atic)s are willing to go to absurd lengths for their personal fix. That is one of the biggest drivers of ballooning cable TV and sporting ticket costs, and the reason for public funding of private sports arenas.
It takes away from their talent pool to work on a 15 year old operating system that very few people actually want to run.
Given the installed base that fought tooth and nail to stay on XP even when the end was near, I'd hardly say that few people wanted to run it. You might make that case now since there has been such a long gap since any security updates have been released.
I gotta say. It's about time. I've been stripping that piece-of-crap browser hijacker out of just about every machine I see. Oracle should be horsewhipped for partnering with those Ask Toolbar assholes.
I think politicians are already chasing post-office jobs pretty aggressively. Most people have been following the Hastert story, where the government is charging him with withdrawing his own money in an improper fashion. My question was how does a one-time high school coach go to Congress and end up being able to afford millions in hush money? Supposedly it's all coming from his time after Congress.
Better question: How does someone withdraw his own fucking money in "an improper fashion?" It would be deliciously just if Hastert had voted for those smurfing rules.
Unfortunately these 'progressives' seem to have convinced a lot of people that it's "for the best". It's a big shame. Hopefully it's a passing fad.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
You should worry more about your own logical reasoning skills than my reading comprehension. First of all, if you believe that you have the right to "say" you can shoot someone in the face, try saying that you're going to shoot the President in public. You'll see just how far that right goes. You cannot claim as a right something that you will find yourself locked up for.
Second, You claim that I do not have the right to shoot you in the face because it is "AGAINST THE LAW" but in the prior post you claim (erroneously) that I have the right to "lie in court" because "the First Amendment protects that right." Which way is it? Do I have illegal rights or not?
Let me define rights for you:
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
Therefore, if it is illegal, IT IS NOT A RIGHT!
I can read just fine. Apparently you cannot so I will spell it out for you. My point is that it is NOT a legal (or natural) right if you cannot exercise it without fear of penalty from the government. I argue that there are voluminous violations of our Constitutional rights by the very people who swore to uphold the very same Constitution. In an ideal world, the only case which our Constitutionally enumerated rights SHOULD be curtailed is when they are in direct conflict with our OTHER rights.
uh... you CAN shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects that right.
You CAN "dirty talk" to a minor, the First Amendment protects that right.
You CAN lie in court, the First Amendment protects that right.
What the First Amendment DOES NOT DO is protect you from the consequences of that exercise of the FREEDOM to say what you want to if it is a violation of other Laws. The Constitution is Supreme.
That is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. By your logic, I have the right to shoot you in the face too, but I can't avoid the consequences of my exercise of my rights. Here's a clue for free: If the government locks you up when you do something, it's not a right, natural or granted, unless the government is illegitimate and is trampling those rights. If you happen to suffer consequences at the hand of your fellow man, but the government sits on its thumbs, it's a right.
You're not allowed to scream "fire!" in a crowd,
you're not allowed to "dirty talk" to a minor,
you're not allowed to lie in court, ... and that list goes on and on.
Only the Constitution doesn't say "except..." The First Amendment is pretty unambiguous.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The current "court interpretations" of unambiguous text is the way we ended up with free speech zones, civil asset forfeiture, warrantless wiretaps, eminent domain for the benefit of private interests, and the rationale that everything is interstate commerce even when it isn't. We strict construction Constitutionalists have taken a lot of shit from those who happen to like their "current" interpretations, calling us mindless Libertarians or anarchists, but you are only one swing vote away from an "interpretation" you can't tolerate. So next time you are robbed by your local policeman who just happens to think you are carrying a bit too much cash to be normal, at least you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, at least we can get those dirty talking perverts, or those nasty Megaupload pirates, or those filthy traitors who told the world we are spying on our own people." Just remember that when the words don't say what is clearly written, anybody can twist them to mean what they want the next time around.
[...] most people who complain about the restriction of their free speech either have no clue, or forcefully refuse to acknowledge that that freedom is only valid against the gouverment (sic), not their fellow man.
This is the only "insightful" comment you have posted.
Not to mention that Smart TVs have a bad record of having their interfaces/applications updated.
This was actually the primary reason I opted for the ROKU and a short bus TV. I had read many horror stories of services no longer working in reviews of older "smart" TVs because the firmware was never updated. My ROKU updates all the time. Plus it's got an awesome remote or I can control it with my phone! And way more services than smart TVs. And lots of WAY COOL hidden channels too.
Ho-lee shit! I am so glad I opted for a dumb TV. My TV was $200 less than the "smart" version. I bought a $99 ROKU and little did I know that I was way more than $101 ahead in the game. Short bus television FTW.
its horseshit scare tactics that dont work anymore over nonsense bullshit that has no leg to stand on
so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing
I had no idea the doomsday clock was still a thing. The last I heard about it was way before the Berlin Wall fell. This is clearly a PR stunt to try to remain relevant in a world that no longer worries about Soviet ICBMs raining down.
Some of us don't TRY to get out of jury duty. I get paid by my employer regardless. I only have to surrender my $10 per day. It gets me out of the office and I get to see how the legal system works in practice. A fair number of my fellow jurors were in the same boat. In fact, the prosecutor asked specifically who would not get paid by their employers if they served and were summarily dismissed without further questions.
I might add that the prosecutor asked if there were any in the pool that just did not want to serve and as long as we had enough to be seated, they were dismissed too.
If the cardinal rule is "Don't piss off Amazon", Amazon has too much power in the market.
If Amazon has "too much power" it is because they deliver the best shopping experience and customers choose to take advantage of it. Hatchette "owns" the biggest authors and book titles and as such should be able to take their ball and go play elsewhere. The problem is that they want to play with someone else's toys and they want to call the game and the rules too.
Bullshit. That would be laughed out of court, even if by some weird oversight it had been left on the books, which I find hard to believe in the first place.
They don't even need to pull out some ancient law. They just lie. I was pulled over a few weeks ago. I was leaving a Wal*Mart after some late grocery shopping at 2:30AM and was pulled over for an "unsafe lane change." This is despite the fact that I was in the same lane I entered after leaving the parking lot. I had no reason to change lanes since I needed to turn in one mile. After he checked my license, he admitted that he was looking for drunks since it was bar closing time. I just happened to be the only car on the road.
I was let go without so much as a verbal warning once he could see me in person and knew I had not been drinking. If I had anything illegal in the car, I would have been busted; all because the cop pulled me over on an absolute lie. I could have been mouthy and let him know I knew it was a lie, but I wanted to go home and since he was not above lying to me why would it be different in court?
The argument that there are so many laws that everyone is breaking the law every minute of the day, and so The Government can just pull you in and lock you up for life on a whim, is just an excuse to justify breaking any law that inconveniences you, on the basis that all laws are equally absurd.
It's hard to take the law seriously when the enforcers are willing to lie in order to catch "criminals." Either the law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
Boies may be a douchebag, but he's a douchebag who actively practices law and apparently reads the cases in full, unlike the good Professor Volokh, who has never actually practiced.
You may have a point, but given the bludgeoning that SCO took from IBM, I'd think twice before putting my eggs in the Boies basket.
I made up my mind based on the alleged and unsworn facts that the media have presented. I am open to having my opinion changed once presented with further compelling facts. Unfortunately, I can't be bothered to read the transcripts of the grand jury evidence that was unprecedentedly released to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot Heart of Gold. It's my personal favorite. His voice is a bit screechy and out of tune but he does have some good songs. I will admit that it is pretty funny that he complains about streaming services degrading the "quality" given the quality of his singing.
And you miss the bigger picture. Making it illegal for an honest citizen to print a 3D gun will not stop the criminals from doing it.
That is the biggest problem with gun control -- criminals do not obey laws.
You cannot see the forest for the trees.
This is ALL ABOUT buying time by making sharing research more difficult so they can improve detection technology. They know criminals will print them and they are not afraid of the single shot Liberator. They want to be ready to detect a highly reliable, multi-shot, semi or fully automatic, 3D printed firearm. They want to threaten those who would share their insights and improvements to slow development.
Not better. More available.
Here in the UK, it's pretty hard to get an illegal gun. You need connections - a contact in organized crime who can put you in touch with the right people. That means your common street gang member doesn't have a gun - they have to make do with knives. If 3D printed guns became more practical, every gangsta-wannabe would have one.
It's a US law/regulation. Guns are already easily available here. It's not a problem to get one. Availability is not the issue. And they are not afraid of a unreliable, single shot, kludge like the liberator and its ilk.
The Feds are scared that some bright boy genius will take existing plans and improve things with newer and improved 3D printing technology to make a highly reliable and effective, undetectable weapon. They don't give two shits if some UK hoodlum can suddenly print a Liberator and have an illegal handgun in London. They are worried about someone bringing something that works well and can't be detected on a plane or on a Federal property.
You miss the big picture. 3D printed guns are in their infancy. The powers-that-be are scared shitless that 3D printed guns will EVENTUALLY be way better than your conventional home built firearms.
Like you were supposed to when you started charging for cable. Who knows, you could make more money by offering a better product.
Yea, I miss the good old days. MTV actually played music (and no advertising). USA actually had programming all night (and it was weird stuff). TBS had black-and-white movies.
Now, get off my lawn
Ahh... I miss Rhonda Shear on USA.... Up... All night.
Why would you be willing to pay that much to watch a bunch of people/animals/real housewives running around talking to/mating with/assaulting each other? How can that be so entertaining you'd pay $100/month? I understand how TV dramas/wildlife programs/"reality" shows can be fun for the actors/animals/just awful human beings, I just don't get people paying money to watch others act in/be oblivious to/shamelessly mug for the camera in them.
To each his own?
I don't see anybody offering to spend $100 per month to watch the Kardashians, or Survivor, or Real Housewives of ($cityname) for a commercial free feed. That is the difference. Sports fan(atic)s are willing to go to absurd lengths for their personal fix. That is one of the biggest drivers of ballooning cable TV and sporting ticket costs, and the reason for public funding of private sports arenas.
Given the installed base that fought tooth and nail to stay on XP even when the end was near, I'd hardly say that few people wanted to run it. You might make that case now since there has been such a long gap since any security updates have been released.
I gotta say. It's about time. I've been stripping that piece-of-crap browser hijacker out of just about every machine I see. Oracle should be horsewhipped for partnering with those Ask Toolbar assholes.
I think politicians are already chasing post-office jobs pretty aggressively. Most people have been following the Hastert story, where the government is charging him with withdrawing his own money in an improper fashion. My question was how does a one-time high school coach go to Congress and end up being able to afford millions in hush money? Supposedly it's all coming from his time after Congress.
Better question: How does someone withdraw his own fucking money in "an improper fashion?" It would be deliciously just if Hastert had voted for those smurfing rules.
Is the simple math too hard for you? Perhaps you could ask a third grader to do it for you.
Man, the dickheads are everywhere today!
Everybody gets cranky when it gets that hot.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-C.S. Lewis
Second, You claim that I do not have the right to shoot you in the face because it is "AGAINST THE LAW" but in the prior post you claim (erroneously) that I have the right to "lie in court" because "the First Amendment protects that right." Which way is it? Do I have illegal rights or not?
Let me define rights for you:
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
Therefore, if it is illegal, IT IS NOT A RIGHT!
I can read just fine. Apparently you cannot so I will spell it out for you. My point is that it is NOT a legal (or natural) right if you cannot exercise it without fear of penalty from the government. I argue that there are voluminous violations of our Constitutional rights by the very people who swore to uphold the very same Constitution. In an ideal world, the only case which our Constitutionally enumerated rights SHOULD be curtailed is when they are in direct conflict with our OTHER rights.
That is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. By your logic, I have the right to shoot you in the face too, but I can't avoid the consequences of my exercise of my rights. Here's a clue for free: If the government locks you up when you do something, it's not a right, natural or granted, unless the government is illegitimate and is trampling those rights. If you happen to suffer consequences at the hand of your fellow man, but the government sits on its thumbs, it's a right.
Only the Constitution doesn't say "except..." The First Amendment is pretty unambiguous.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The current "court interpretations" of unambiguous text is the way we ended up with free speech zones, civil asset forfeiture, warrantless wiretaps, eminent domain for the benefit of private interests, and the rationale that everything is interstate commerce even when it isn't. We strict construction Constitutionalists have taken a lot of shit from those who happen to like their "current" interpretations, calling us mindless Libertarians or anarchists, but you are only one swing vote away from an "interpretation" you can't tolerate. So next time you are robbed by your local policeman who just happens to think you are carrying a bit too much cash to be normal, at least you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, at least we can get those dirty talking perverts, or those nasty Megaupload pirates, or those filthy traitors who told the world we are spying on our own people." Just remember that when the words don't say what is clearly written, anybody can twist them to mean what they want the next time around.
This is the only "insightful" comment you have posted.
This was actually the primary reason I opted for the ROKU and a short bus TV. I had read many horror stories of services no longer working in reviews of older "smart" TVs because the firmware was never updated. My ROKU updates all the time. Plus it's got an awesome remote or I can control it with my phone! And way more services than smart TVs. And lots of WAY COOL hidden channels too.
Looks like the end of Smart TVs right here.
Only an idiot would want this in their home.
Oh wait...
Ho-lee shit! I am so glad I opted for a dumb TV. My TV was $200 less than the "smart" version. I bought a $99 ROKU and little did I know that I was way more than $101 ahead in the game. Short bus television FTW.
its horseshit scare tactics that dont work anymore over nonsense bullshit that has no leg to stand on
so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing
I had no idea the doomsday clock was still a thing. The last I heard about it was way before the Berlin Wall fell. This is clearly a PR stunt to try to remain relevant in a world that no longer worries about Soviet ICBMs raining down.
Some of us don't TRY to get out of jury duty. I get paid by my employer regardless. I only have to surrender my $10 per day. It gets me out of the office and I get to see how the legal system works in practice. A fair number of my fellow jurors were in the same boat. In fact, the prosecutor asked specifically who would not get paid by their employers if they served and were summarily dismissed without further questions.
I might add that the prosecutor asked if there were any in the pool that just did not want to serve and as long as we had enough to be seated, they were dismissed too.
If the cardinal rule is "Don't piss off Amazon", Amazon has too much power in the market.
If Amazon has "too much power" it is because they deliver the best shopping experience and customers choose to take advantage of it. Hatchette "owns" the biggest authors and book titles and as such should be able to take their ball and go play elsewhere. The problem is that they want to play with someone else's toys and they want to call the game and the rules too.
Hachette forgot the cardinal rule. One does not shit where one eats.
They don't even need to pull out some ancient law. They just lie. I was pulled over a few weeks ago. I was leaving a Wal*Mart after some late grocery shopping at 2:30AM and was pulled over for an "unsafe lane change." This is despite the fact that I was in the same lane I entered after leaving the parking lot. I had no reason to change lanes since I needed to turn in one mile. After he checked my license, he admitted that he was looking for drunks since it was bar closing time. I just happened to be the only car on the road.
I was let go without so much as a verbal warning once he could see me in person and knew I had not been drinking. If I had anything illegal in the car, I would have been busted; all because the cop pulled me over on an absolute lie. I could have been mouthy and let him know I knew it was a lie, but I wanted to go home and since he was not above lying to me why would it be different in court?
It's hard to take the law seriously when the enforcers are willing to lie in order to catch "criminals." Either the law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
You may have a point, but given the bludgeoning that SCO took from IBM, I'd think twice before putting my eggs in the Boies basket.
Boies, the gift that keeps on giving.
He certainly did stretch that Gore v. Bush fame into a lucrative gravy train.
Michael Brown's stepfather at rally: 'Burn this bitch down!'
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/...
Real classy people...
Let me fix that for you...
I made up my mind based on the alleged and unsworn facts that the media have presented. I am open to having my opinion changed once presented with further compelling facts. Unfortunately, I can't be bothered to read the transcripts of the grand jury evidence that was unprecedentedly released to the public.