If someone has food, they are more likely to be content.
This looks right to me. I'm sure you agree? If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist.
I don't have real-world data on this. However, I'm sure to most that this would seem common sense. Therfore, the burden of proof falls on you--if you wish to contest this, you must provide the data. Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
This follows mathematically from the other two.
So how's my critical thinking?
Bad. This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("after this therefore because of this") fallacy. Google it.
Besides that, your argument is silly; terrorists don't come from countries where people are starving. McVeigh lived right here in the United States. The Arab countries where a lot of terrorists come from have plenty of money and food. Africa is one of the few countries I can think of where a large number of people don't have enough food, and yet there hasn't been a single African terrorist in known history.
So how is bribing potential terrorists with food going to stop them from becoming terrorists when they're not starving? You seem very ignorant of living conditions in countries like Afghanistan. It may be a third world country but, by and large, there is not a problem with starvation. Saudia Arabia, where I believe Bin Ladin's family lives, is an incredibly rich country.
The point, however, is that we're being attacked by people who were previously hungry.
No we aren't!! You have zero evidence of this and I really doubt you could find some if you tried. Most terrorist recruits are NOT poor, starving people!
Unrelated to Iraq. This has been substantiated many times over.
Doesn't matter. Saddam supported terrorism. Removing him was essential. Besides that, stop blaming "the Bush administration." The house and senate voted in favor of this war. And don't give me any bullshit about "the Bush administration lied about WMDs", because they still would have voted for it. John Kerry himself has said on numerous occasions that it didn't matter whether there were WMDs or not, Saddam still needed to be removed from power.
But it didn't prevent another 9/11. It wasn't worth it.
It didn't? Has America been attacked again? No? So I'd say whatever we're doing, it seems to be working.
A real dog, minimum 50 pounds. Anything smaller isn't a deterrent, it's an annoyance.
Untrue. I have a little dog, maybe a 20 pounder. She scares the hell out of people. She's very loud with a mean, deep bark, and when people even come close to our house she stands on her back legs, looks out the window and barks her head off.
She scares the hell out of people. I had a UPS guy actually jump BACKWARDS off my front porch when I opened the door and she was standing next to me barking.
A friend of mine has a Doberman. She looks scary as hell. But she's fat, slow, old, and one of the sweetest dogs you've ever seen. She wouldn't hurt a fly.
The local gangbangers that live around him won't touch his house. In fact they cross the street when they're walking by and steer far clear of that dog, who is usually just lazily sleeping on the front porch and would only lick them if they approached.
orry pal, but this isn't a case of fair use, this is a case of copying a movie and breaking your contract with the rental agency.
I don't have a contract with the rental agency. Exchanging money for goods does not constitute signing a contract.
As someone else pointed out on here, the Home Recording Act only entitles you to time-shift (meaning only watch a program later, as in once), it doesn't allow you to keep a movie forever.
Untrue. Show me the provision in the Home Recording Act that says you must delete your copy after you watch it. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.
You can wrap whatever IP-speak you want, but in the end you're still depriving motion picture studios of money.
Not giving them money and depriving them of money are two different things. The fact that I don't buy a movie doesn't mean I'm depriving anyone of jack shit. If I rent it and invite a dozen friends over, are we depriving the rental agency and the studio of money? After all, those friends might have rented or bought the movie if I hadn't let them view it for free...
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content. If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist. Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
For one, this is a common fallacy. When you get to college, please take an introductory course on critical thinking.
For two, Bin Ladin and his gang are filthy rich. We're not being attacked by hungry people. We're being attacked by people with a lot of money and a lot of resources (and plenty of food, too, by the way).
Your logic is all wrong.
No, we weren't.
Yes, we fucking WERE. What do you think 9/11 was, big guy?
Not to spend $200 billion on. It wasn't worth $200 billion.
If it prevented another 9/11, it damn sure was worth $200B.
You can't pay $3.99 (or whatever the going rate for PPV is) and keep the movie forever whereas Johnny DVD-buyer goes out and buys the same thing on DVD for $20. Johnny DVD-buyer is legally entitled to watch the movie for as long as he wants, Mr. PPV cannot because his time is up.
Sorry, that's a load of bullshit. Fair use laws allow me to do whatever I damn well please. I can rent a movie and make a copy for my own personal use if I like. Pay Per View is nothing more than a movie rental.
As a postscript, imagine what we could have done with the $200 billion we used in the war if we'd given it away instead of spent it. We could have completely funded global anti-hunger efforts for 8 years or so, for example. Now don't you think that would have done more to combat terrorism than starting a war?
No, I don't. How, exactly, would giving food away work to combat terrorism? I really want you to think this through. The terrorists want to kill you, why? Because you're not a Muslim and because you offend them. They hate everything America stands for. It's not just about our politics; they hate the fact that we let the women show their faces in public.
We're dealing with extremist whackos here. How would giving food away do a damn thing to combat them? What, you think those fuckers that flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center would have a change of heart? "America is good. They gave food to the poor. Let's leave them alone." Hell no, that's not how it works! They'd say, "TeeHee, those stupid Americans, their military is weak now that they've given away all of that money. Let's nail them; that'll teach those no good infidels!"
I mean, come on. These people believe they'll get 72 virgins in heaven if they can kill enough Americans when they blow themselves up. And you - you want to combat this by giving away food.
I hope your opinion on this matter is not representative of the rest of your generation.
By the way, a little advice: We didn't start a war. We were attacked first. I know you're thinking, "But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!" Maybe not, but here's some truth: Saddam at one time had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam did NOT cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. And Saddam openly pays money to the families of suicide bombers depending on how many people they kill. Plain and simple? Saddam may not have supported Al Queda in the 9/11 attacks, but he DID support terrorism. And since we are working to eliminate terrorism and the unstable dictators that support it, Iraq was a logical target.
Tell you what, clown: You go first. Donate 90% of your income to everyone else, because that's what it's going to take. Then we'll talk.
I'm willing to bet you donate very little, if anything, to groups that work on the problems you claim we should all be giving money to. Chances are the last time you saved up a grand you bought yourself a new toy, instead of donating it in the name of world peace. Until you're putting your money where your mouth is, don't be telling me what to do with mine.
Re:those statistics don't tell everything
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Can we just agree that all politicians are scum sucking assbags and leave it at that?
I don't know, but there has GOT to be a DMCA violation here somewhere...
Re:Yeah, but put 2 on an X10 controlled switch and
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
X-10 and CF bulbs don't mix. Period. Not even if you get "appliance switches" and filters and such. A single CF bulb anywhere in your home will basically destroy X-10 operation.
Currently we swap using laptops, or just plug a hard drive in (I have a front loading "hot swap" bay - not really hot swap since it's IDE, but "quick swap"). But swapping with DVDs isn't a bad idea.
Don't slack on indexing and cataloging the collections with spreadsheets like Excel or Access also.
Actually, I index everything with directory structures and rely heavily on id3 tags. Everything gets properly renamed & tagged before going into my collection. My iPod requires proper id3 tags to be useful to me, so since I'm already maintaining them there's no need for another database.
Perhaps in the future people will use P2P primarily to trade the listing files of their collections and then use parcel post or UPS to trade the actual collection itself on media like hard disk.
Now THAT is a good idea!
Although, imagine the lawsuit when you send a 400GB drive full of high quality goodness to an RIAA goon playing file trader...
These lawsuits don't matter a bit. I quit downloading music - now I swap entire collections with people in my town. Friends, acquaintances, coworkers, neighbors, friends-of-friends-of-friends... "Oh, you're into digital music, too? You say your collection is 10GB? Mine is 60. Do you want a copy? Mind if I make a copy of your stuff while I'm at it?"
Oh, and better yet - this stuff tends to be full albums with higher bitrates. I've tripled my music collection over the past few months. The only problem with this approach is hard drive space - it starts to get expensive after a few rounds of trading.
But then people who are dowloading music instead of buying it aren't the RIAA's customers.
How do you know they aren't buying it, too, you idiot?
I just downloaded "The Girl Next Door". I hadn't heard of the movie before but I saw it while browsing for torrents and decided, "What the hell." It rocked. So much so that the next time I'm at Costco I'm buying the DVD.
If someone hadn't illegally shared that with me, the studio would have sold one less copy.
They have crippled DVD-ROM drives with region coding at the hardware level.
Isn't this because they own patents regarding DVD technology (perhaps not the hardware, but certainly the software required to decrypt their discs) and can legally force the issue? "If you want your player to be capable of playing our stuff, you have to license our technology, and part of that license agreement requires you to implement region coding."
Seems to be just a civil issue as opposed to some government law demanding it. Someone could produce a DVD player without region coding legally, but they'd get their pants sued off in a civil court.
Did you know that you would have to take 1,000,000 pictures a day to fill up a 100 terabyte disk in one lifetime?
Uh, no it wouldn't. My digital camera takes pictures that are 6 megs a pop. That's only 166 pictures on my 1GB CF card. So, 116,000 pictures per TB, or 16,600,000 pictures per 100TB.
I think I'm going to live longer than 16.6 days, big guy.
Hell, just what sort of shitty camera do you have where you can fit a million pictures in a terabyte? What's that, 100kb a piece? That camera must be a relic of the stone age (eg, 1990s)...
You can buy touchscreens, they're relatively cheap. People don't use them because a mouse is much less expensive and it's more of a strain to reach up and move your finger across the entire screen.
Slashdot Mirror
I downloaded laserdisc rips of the originals. As good as you can get quality wise without the bullshit changes.
They are guessing it would take between $100,000 to $250,000 to get people to rat out their friends, coworkers, etc...
Holy shit, spammers have loyal friends. I'd rat 'em out for a happy meal.
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content.
This looks right to me. I'm sure you agree?
If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist.
I don't have real-world data on this. However, I'm sure to most that this would seem common sense. Therfore, the burden of proof falls on you--if you wish to contest this, you must provide the data.
Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
This follows mathematically from the other two.
So how's my critical thinking?
Bad. This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("after this therefore because of this") fallacy. Google it.
Besides that, your argument is silly; terrorists don't come from countries where people are starving. McVeigh lived right here in the United States. The Arab countries where a lot of terrorists come from have plenty of money and food. Africa is one of the few countries I can think of where a large number of people don't have enough food, and yet there hasn't been a single African terrorist in known history.
So how is bribing potential terrorists with food going to stop them from becoming terrorists when they're not starving? You seem very ignorant of living conditions in countries like Afghanistan. It may be a third world country but, by and large, there is not a problem with starvation. Saudia Arabia, where I believe Bin Ladin's family lives, is an incredibly rich country.
The point, however, is that we're being attacked by people who were previously hungry.
No we aren't!! You have zero evidence of this and I really doubt you could find some if you tried. Most terrorist recruits are NOT poor, starving people!
Unrelated to Iraq. This has been substantiated many times over.
Doesn't matter. Saddam supported terrorism. Removing him was essential. Besides that, stop blaming "the Bush administration." The house and senate voted in favor of this war. And don't give me any bullshit about "the Bush administration lied about WMDs", because they still would have voted for it. John Kerry himself has said on numerous occasions that it didn't matter whether there were WMDs or not, Saddam still needed to be removed from power.
But it didn't prevent another 9/11. It wasn't worth it.
It didn't? Has America been attacked again? No? So I'd say whatever we're doing, it seems to be working.
A real dog, minimum 50 pounds. Anything smaller isn't a deterrent, it's an annoyance.
Untrue. I have a little dog, maybe a 20 pounder. She scares the hell out of people. She's very loud with a mean, deep bark, and when people even come close to our house she stands on her back legs, looks out the window and barks her head off.
She scares the hell out of people. I had a UPS guy actually jump BACKWARDS off my front porch when I opened the door and she was standing next to me barking.
A friend of mine has a Doberman. She looks scary as hell. But she's fat, slow, old, and one of the sweetest dogs you've ever seen. She wouldn't hurt a fly.
The local gangbangers that live around him won't touch his house. In fact they cross the street when they're walking by and steer far clear of that dog, who is usually just lazily sleeping on the front porch and would only lick them if they approached.
orry pal, but this isn't a case of fair use, this is a case of copying a movie and breaking your contract with the rental agency.
I don't have a contract with the rental agency. Exchanging money for goods does not constitute signing a contract.
As someone else pointed out on here, the Home Recording Act only entitles you to time-shift (meaning only watch a program later, as in once), it doesn't allow you to keep a movie forever.
Untrue. Show me the provision in the Home Recording Act that says you must delete your copy after you watch it. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.
You can wrap whatever IP-speak you want, but in the end you're still depriving motion picture studios of money.
Not giving them money and depriving them of money are two different things. The fact that I don't buy a movie doesn't mean I'm depriving anyone of jack shit. If I rent it and invite a dozen friends over, are we depriving the rental agency and the studio of money? After all, those friends might have rented or bought the movie if I hadn't let them view it for free...
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content. If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist. Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
For one, this is a common fallacy. When you get to college, please take an introductory course on critical thinking.
For two, Bin Ladin and his gang are filthy rich. We're not being attacked by hungry people. We're being attacked by people with a lot of money and a lot of resources (and plenty of food, too, by the way).
Your logic is all wrong.
No, we weren't.
Yes, we fucking WERE. What do you think 9/11 was, big guy?
Not to spend $200 billion on. It wasn't worth $200 billion.
If it prevented another 9/11, it damn sure was worth $200B.
You can't pay $3.99 (or whatever the going rate for PPV is) and keep the movie forever whereas Johnny DVD-buyer goes out and buys the same thing on DVD for $20. Johnny DVD-buyer is legally entitled to watch the movie for as long as he wants, Mr. PPV cannot because his time is up.
Sorry, that's a load of bullshit. Fair use laws allow me to do whatever I damn well please. I can rent a movie and make a copy for my own personal use if I like. Pay Per View is nothing more than a movie rental.
As a postscript, imagine what we could have done with the $200 billion we used in the war if we'd given it away instead of spent it. We could have completely funded global anti-hunger efforts for 8 years or so, for example. Now don't you think that would have done more to combat terrorism than starting a war?
No, I don't. How, exactly, would giving food away work to combat terrorism? I really want you to think this through. The terrorists want to kill you, why? Because you're not a Muslim and because you offend them. They hate everything America stands for. It's not just about our politics; they hate the fact that we let the women show their faces in public.
We're dealing with extremist whackos here. How would giving food away do a damn thing to combat them? What, you think those fuckers that flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center would have a change of heart? "America is good. They gave food to the poor. Let's leave them alone." Hell no, that's not how it works! They'd say, "TeeHee, those stupid Americans, their military is weak now that they've given away all of that money. Let's nail them; that'll teach those no good infidels!"
I mean, come on. These people believe they'll get 72 virgins in heaven if they can kill enough Americans when they blow themselves up. And you - you want to combat this by giving away food.
I hope your opinion on this matter is not representative of the rest of your generation.
By the way, a little advice: We didn't start a war. We were attacked first. I know you're thinking, "But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!" Maybe not, but here's some truth: Saddam at one time had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam did NOT cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. And Saddam openly pays money to the families of suicide bombers depending on how many people they kill. Plain and simple? Saddam may not have supported Al Queda in the 9/11 attacks, but he DID support terrorism. And since we are working to eliminate terrorism and the unstable dictators that support it, Iraq was a logical target.
Tell you what, clown: You go first. Donate 90% of your income to everyone else, because that's what it's going to take. Then we'll talk.
I'm willing to bet you donate very little, if anything, to groups that work on the problems you claim we should all be giving money to. Chances are the last time you saved up a grand you bought yourself a new toy, instead of donating it in the name of world peace. Until you're putting your money where your mouth is, don't be telling me what to do with mine.
Can we just agree that all politicians are scum sucking assbags and leave it at that?
That was Mr. Fusion, not Mr. Fission...
I don't know, but there has GOT to be a DMCA violation here somewhere...
X-10 and CF bulbs don't mix. Period. Not even if you get "appliance switches" and filters and such. A single CF bulb anywhere in your home will basically destroy X-10 operation.
I speak from experience.
Then trade by hand or mail genre DVDs
Currently we swap using laptops, or just plug a hard drive in (I have a front loading "hot swap" bay - not really hot swap since it's IDE, but "quick swap"). But swapping with DVDs isn't a bad idea.
Don't slack on indexing and cataloging the collections with spreadsheets like Excel or Access also.
Actually, I index everything with directory structures and rely heavily on id3 tags. Everything gets properly renamed & tagged before going into my collection. My iPod requires proper id3 tags to be useful to me, so since I'm already maintaining them there's no need for another database.
Perhaps in the future people will use P2P primarily to trade the listing files of their collections and then use parcel post or UPS to trade the actual collection itself on media like hard disk.
Now THAT is a good idea!
Although, imagine the lawsuit when you send a 400GB drive full of high quality goodness to an RIAA goon playing file trader...
I agree with you 100%.
These lawsuits don't matter a bit. I quit downloading music - now I swap entire collections with people in my town. Friends, acquaintances, coworkers, neighbors, friends-of-friends-of-friends... "Oh, you're into digital music, too? You say your collection is 10GB? Mine is 60. Do you want a copy? Mind if I make a copy of your stuff while I'm at it?"
Oh, and better yet - this stuff tends to be full albums with higher bitrates. I've tripled my music collection over the past few months. The only problem with this approach is hard drive space - it starts to get expensive after a few rounds of trading.
But then people who are dowloading music instead of buying it aren't the RIAA's customers.
How do you know they aren't buying it, too, you idiot?
I just downloaded "The Girl Next Door". I hadn't heard of the movie before but I saw it while browsing for torrents and decided, "What the hell." It rocked. So much so that the next time I'm at Costco I'm buying the DVD.
If someone hadn't illegally shared that with me, the studio would have sold one less copy.
They have crippled DVD-ROM drives with region coding at the hardware level.
Isn't this because they own patents regarding DVD technology (perhaps not the hardware, but certainly the software required to decrypt their discs) and can legally force the issue? "If you want your player to be capable of playing our stuff, you have to license our technology, and part of that license agreement requires you to implement region coding."
Seems to be just a civil issue as opposed to some government law demanding it. Someone could produce a DVD player without region coding legally, but they'd get their pants sued off in a civil court.
Yeah, it's all Sony - both the drives and the tapes.
While SuperAIT is nice, it is really only 500GB native per tape,
True. But it's still the best thing going in portable storage right now.
This 1TB disc is twice the size, but you can't buy it today...
Actually, the compression isn't bad. I write data that is already compressed pretty well with gzip, and still get 600-700GB per tape.
Now, if you're backing up highly compressed data such as mpeg audio/video, you won't see much improvement...
Did you know that you would have to take 1,000,000 pictures a day to fill up a 100 terabyte disk in one lifetime?
Uh, no it wouldn't. My digital camera takes pictures that are 6 megs a pop. That's only 166 pictures on my 1GB CF card. So, 116,000 pictures per TB, or 16,600,000 pictures per 100TB.
I think I'm going to live longer than 16.6 days, big guy.
Hell, just what sort of shitty camera do you have where you can fit a million pictures in a terabyte? What's that, 100kb a piece? That camera must be a relic of the stone age (eg, 1990s)...
however, given that the biggest standard drives are about 250GB now - and uncommon -
Huh? 250GB drives are everywhere. Hell, you can buy 400GB drives now.
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Stupid lame filters.
You can buy touchscreens, they're relatively cheap. People don't use them because a mouse is much less expensive and it's more of a strain to reach up and move your finger across the entire screen.
That's assuming organisations like the RIAA and MPAA would allow HVD.
News flash: Those fuckers don't get a say in this.