But, I would be truly peeved to learn that anyone was sitting out in the street and recording traffic for any significant period of time. You want to "glance" at my traffic the same way a regular person would "glance" into my house windows while walking down the sidewalk, that's reasonable. But you want to camp out on the sidewalk and point a camera into my windows 24x7 and save it all to a database for later use and I do have a problem with that - same as I would with a long-term packet dump. If nothing else, because it is essentially stalking.
And that's the case even for encrypted traffic - even when the encryption is not cracked - as some amount of information can be gleaned from traffic analysis.
The most amusing part of it all is how up-in-arms people get over GPL "theft." The double-standard never occurs to them.
It's funny you accuse the slashdot hive mind of hypocrisy when hypocrisy is the precise reason people here get peeved about GPL violations. The violators universally hide behind copyright for other parts of their business. Show me one story on slashdot about a GPL violation by a company or even just some sort of group that doesn't rely on copyright protection for any of their products and I'll eat my words.
Remember, the entire point of the GPL is to use the system to subvert the system. If there was no system in the first place, there would be no need for the GPL. If I felt like it, I could probably dig up a quote by RMS to that effect.
I'd like to run a virtualized copy of windows with direct hardware access (passthrough) to my video card - for games and bluray playback. I've seen a couple of messages talking about it, but not much in the way of a guide or a list of gotchas.
Islamic terrorists want to kill everybody who's not Muslim enough in their opinion, which includes other Muslims, as well as infidels who do not submit to Islamic rule. That's a huge difference from terrorist groups that have local aims, even within the US.
Irrelevant. The overwhelming numbers, on the scale of 1,000,000:1 is that muslims are not terrorists. Doesn't matter what the target is of the ones who are terrorists - freaking out because someone is merely obviously muslim is as an effective a means of risk management as body scanning grandmothers at the airport.
Look at the Terry Jones guy who was going to burn a koran. He started running into "consequences" like his insurance being pulled and his mortgage being called in.
All you have is his word for that. He's been known to lie on more than one occasion - like when he said imam Rauf had promised him anything. For one thing, its pretty much illegal to unilaterally call in a mortgage.
Some things are supposed to be protected from consequences, that's why we have laws against discrimination. We should probably have laws against speech-based discrimination too.
I totally disagree. If we can't refuse to associate with someone because they are an ass, then there is no point to freedom of speech in the first place.
Someone wearing Muslim garb in an airport is much more likely to be trying to cause trouble than other people.
I'm quite sure that 1000x more people in western clothing have "caused trouble" in american airports than anyone else.
Reality is racist. There are statistically valid correlations between (on one side) race, other inherited characteristics, cultural characteristics, and (on the other) individual and group behaviour. Denying that such correlations exist is lying, and helps nobody.
Where you fail is on the "statistically valid" part. Bigotry is innumeracy of exactly that sort. There is no statiscally valid correlation between being muslim and being a terrorist. Hell, in the USA over the last ~20 years 10x as many terrorist attacks were committed by latinos as muslims. Do you fear puerto ricans? What happened to your "statistically valid correlation?"
This isn't much to go on and get a sense of how or why the sanctions were applied. Considering the dearth of underlying exposition, this article qualifies as a non sequitur.
You are right, the article was lame without cites. So I applied a little google-fu and came up with the ruling. I've never seen that preamble about "not for publication" before so I can't really say how long it will stay at that URL.
Looks like a 'trick" to move people off the old function-over-form system to the new javascripted form-over-function system. They probably reset the defaults and figured some number of people would just live with it.
Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech. Only private corporations do that.
Unfortunately for the shills and useful idiots there's plenty of cases where the government has used its regulatory power to protect free speech. Like the common-carrier laws which are part of the "network neutrality" we had for land-line telephones.
Make the folder ~/.macromedia read only. Works with Linux, but not in Windows.
I just tried it under linux. When I made the empty ~/.macromedia directory read-only, the flash plugin consistently crashed. So I made sure that Flash_Player sub-folder was created by the plugin first, deleted any cookie files and then did a recursive chmod -R a-w ~/.macromedia and it seems to work fine now.
He was following the rule, and the letter of the law. He didn't defame himself.
How can mocking him for following the letter of the law be considered defamation? Isn't defamation harming a person's reputation through libel or slander - neither of which would apply to openly laughing at someone for following the law.
This reminds me of the time the US was almost attacked by giant killer terrorist robots. Luckily, Osama didn't invent and deploy them, otherwise the death toll could have been in the 9 figures.
Ironically, that's kind of what happened with both the recent Times Square Bomber and the London nightclub carbomb back in 2007 - neither of the bombers built anything particularly dangerous. In both cases the bombs lacked oxidizers (and other things too) - which meant that at best they might blow the windows out of the car the bomb was in. But all the politicians were eager to make hay and said exactly the same sort of thing, "if the bomb had exploded it could have killed thousands!"
Before they could approve it, Medicare would have to some up with some reasonable way to ensure that the device is being used to do what the government purchased it to do.
No. You totally missed the point. The problem is that the cost of this "ensurance" is too high to be practical. Something like an ipad is ~$400. But a medicare approved ipad is going to be ~$4000 (just look at hearing aids for an example - components not all that different from a blutooth headset but 10x-50x the cost). The answer is to eat the waste of misuse for low cost items because the cost of ensuring that there is no waste is higher than the waste itself.
It's not the medical community. It's the bureaucratic community combined with the community that gets its panties in a bunch out of government money being "wasted" with spending on things people may not need. So they force untold billions to be spent on documentation and purpose-built equipment rather than more effective solutions. All while complaining about government waste and inefficiency.
So totally this. Yet another case of perfect being the enemy of good.
I was going to post much the same thing. Some nerd eulogy, 10 words pertaining to the death of a math hero, ~70 devoted to the author. Can we get more HF Asperger/Narcissistic.
Yes. How awful that the author would talk about how the deceased affected him personally. If ever affected as many people as Mandlebrot did, I would be insulted if they talked about it at my funeral.
Why in the world would you assume that the article has anything to do with the geopolitical situation?
Maybe because even the freakin summary said that 18 other IDN's have already been approved. If it weren't for the geopolitical situation, what makes the 18th approval worthy of note?
My reasoning here is sound. If I have committed a logical fallacy or other error in my reasoning, you'd do me a favor by pointing it out. If you can't do that, personal attacks will neither add to nor subtract from one thing I've said.
Your logical fallacy is assuming that I was attacking you in the first place. I call things what they are - your attitude about the uselessness of facebook is snooty, judgmental and totally dismissive of the value that half a billion people have found in it. Your entire argument about a pattern of red flags was predicated on the assumption that you were being attacked with no rational basis - I showed you the reason -- a reason you have reinforced with your response -- you just can't accept it because you are at least as colored by irrationality as the people you criticize.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, his analogy is wrong.
But, I would be truly peeved to learn that anyone was sitting out in the street and recording traffic for any significant period of time. You want to "glance" at my traffic the same way a regular person would "glance" into my house windows while walking down the sidewalk, that's reasonable. But you want to camp out on the sidewalk and point a camera into my windows 24x7 and save it all to a database for later use and I do have a problem with that - same as I would with a long-term packet dump. If nothing else, because it is essentially stalking.
And that's the case even for encrypted traffic - even when the encryption is not cracked - as some amount of information can be gleaned from traffic analysis.
The most amusing part of it all is how up-in-arms people get over GPL "theft." The double-standard never occurs to them.
It's funny you accuse the slashdot hive mind of hypocrisy when hypocrisy is the precise reason people here get peeved about GPL violations. The violators universally hide behind copyright for other parts of their business. Show me one story on slashdot about a GPL violation by a company or even just some sort of group that doesn't rely on copyright protection for any of their products and I'll eat my words.
Remember, the entire point of the GPL is to use the system to subvert the system. If there was no system in the first place, there would be no need for the GPL. If I felt like it, I could probably dig up a quote by RMS to that effect.
It may not be explicit, but it is the underlying message. Why else post it on Slashdot?
Because slashdot is not a monolithic belief system.
You will not be able to use the proprietary NVidia or ATI/AMD drivers in an OS (Windows or Linux) in a virtualized environment.
Oh really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ia3IwG6tp
I'd like to run a virtualized copy of windows with direct hardware access (passthrough) to my video card - for games and bluray playback.
I've seen a couple of messages talking about it, but not much in the way of a guide or a list of gotchas.
Freedom of association is great but it's already dead. You can't refuse to associate with some group you hate if it's a protected group.
Far from it.
Can you share your source for that, it sounds interesting.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
And no, they aren't "drug lord terrorists" lol.
Islamic terrorists want to kill everybody who's not Muslim enough in their opinion, which includes other Muslims, as well as infidels who do not submit to Islamic rule. That's a huge difference from terrorist groups that have local aims, even within the US.
Irrelevant. The overwhelming numbers, on the scale of 1,000,000:1 is that muslims are not terrorists. Doesn't matter what the target is of the ones who are terrorists - freaking out because someone is merely obviously muslim is as an effective a means of risk management as body scanning grandmothers at the airport.
Look at the Terry Jones guy who was going to burn a koran. He started running into "consequences" like his insurance being pulled and his mortgage being called in.
All you have is his word for that. He's been known to lie on more than one occasion - like when he said imam Rauf had promised him anything. For one thing, its pretty much illegal to unilaterally call in a mortgage.
Some things are supposed to be protected from consequences, that's why we have laws against discrimination. We should probably have laws against speech-based discrimination too.
I totally disagree. If we can't refuse to associate with someone because they are an ass, then there is no point to freedom of speech in the first place.
Someone wearing Muslim garb in an airport is much more likely to be trying to cause trouble than other people.
I'm quite sure that 1000x more people in western clothing have "caused trouble" in american airports than anyone else.
Reality is racist. There are statistically valid correlations between (on one side) race, other inherited characteristics, cultural characteristics, and (on the other) individual and group behaviour. Denying that such correlations exist is lying, and helps nobody.
Where you fail is on the "statistically valid" part. Bigotry is innumeracy of exactly that sort. There is no statiscally valid correlation between being muslim and being a terrorist. Hell, in the USA over the last ~20 years 10x as many terrorist attacks were committed by latinos as muslims. Do you fear puerto ricans? What happened to your "statistically valid correlation?"
And one by one all the bills will die on the floor as the campaign money comes rolling in.
One will stand. The one that ends up with language that protects corps which invade people's privacy.
Yes, I'd prefer to live in a world where I wasn't afraid to publicly state my own beliefs over one where I never had to hear anything offensive.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
So his personal opinion in an opinion piece gets him fired?
NPR won't let their employees attend even nominally political rallies, so yes.
He even went on to say how much he is against outright hatred and racism based on work he has done.
Did he say how one of his best friends is a muslim too?
Sorry but NPR is showing its true colors. You must "one of us" or you are gone. Sad.
When "one of us" means not a bigot, then yes.
Too many liberals. And I am not even trolling...
Totally. If there is one thing about liberals, they are anti-progress.
This isn't much to go on and get a sense of how or why the sanctions were applied. Considering the dearth of underlying exposition, this article qualifies as a non sequitur.
You are right, the article was lame without cites.
So I applied a little google-fu and came up with the ruling.
I've never seen that preamble about "not for publication" before so I can't really say how long it will stay at that URL.
Looks like a 'trick" to move people off the old function-over-form system to the new javascripted form-over-function system.
They probably reset the defaults and figured some number of people would just live with it.
Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech. Only private corporations do that.
Unfortunately for the shills and useful idiots there's plenty of cases where the government has used its regulatory power to protect free speech. Like the common-carrier laws which are part of the "network neutrality" we had for land-line telephones.
Make the folder ~/.macromedia read only. Works with Linux, but not in Windows.
I just tried it under linux.
When I made the empty ~/.macromedia directory read-only, the flash plugin consistently crashed.
So I made sure that Flash_Player sub-folder was created by the plugin first, deleted any cookie files and then did a recursive chmod -R a-w ~/.macromedia and it seems to work fine now.
He was following the rule, and the letter of the law. He didn't defame himself.
How can mocking him for following the letter of the law be considered defamation? Isn't defamation harming a person's reputation through libel or slander - neither of which would apply to openly laughing at someone for following the law.
This reminds me of the time the US was almost attacked by giant killer terrorist robots. Luckily, Osama didn't invent and deploy them, otherwise the death toll could have been in the 9 figures.
Ironically, that's kind of what happened with both the recent Times Square Bomber and the London nightclub carbomb back in 2007 - neither of the bombers built anything particularly dangerous. In both cases the bombs lacked oxidizers (and other things too) - which meant that at best they might blow the windows out of the car the bomb was in. But all the politicians were eager to make hay and said exactly the same sort of thing, "if the bomb had exploded it could have killed thousands!"
Before they could approve it, Medicare would have to some up with some reasonable way to ensure that the device is being used to do what the government purchased it to do.
No. You totally missed the point. The problem is that the cost of this "ensurance" is too high to be practical. Something like an ipad is ~$400. But a medicare approved ipad is going to be ~$4000 (just look at hearing aids for an example - components not all that different from a blutooth headset but 10x-50x the cost). The answer is to eat the waste of misuse for low cost items because the cost of ensuring that there is no waste is higher than the waste itself.
It's not the medical community. It's the bureaucratic community combined with the community that gets its panties in a bunch out of government money being "wasted" with spending on things people may not need. So they force untold billions to be spent on documentation and purpose-built equipment rather than more effective solutions. All while complaining about government waste and inefficiency.
So totally this. Yet another case of perfect being the enemy of good.
I was going to post much the same thing. Some nerd eulogy, 10 words pertaining to the death of a math hero, ~70 devoted to the author. Can we get more HF Asperger/Narcissistic.
Yes. How awful that the author would talk about how the deceased affected him personally.
If ever affected as many people as Mandlebrot did, I would be insulted if they talked about it at my funeral.
Why in the world would you assume that the article has anything to do with the geopolitical situation?
Maybe because even the freakin summary said that 18 other IDN's have already been approved.
If it weren't for the geopolitical situation, what makes the 18th approval worthy of note?
Dibs on flockofseagulls.iran.
Yeah, but I got "and.iran"
My reasoning here is sound. If I have committed a logical fallacy or other error in my reasoning, you'd do me a favor by pointing it out. If you can't do that, personal attacks will neither add to nor subtract from one thing I've said.
Your logical fallacy is assuming that I was attacking you in the first place.
I call things what they are - your attitude about the uselessness of facebook is snooty, judgmental and totally dismissive of the value that half a billion people have found in it. Your entire argument about a pattern of red flags was predicated on the assumption that you were being attacked with no rational basis - I showed you the reason -- a reason you have reinforced with your response -- you just can't accept it because you are at least as colored by irrationality as the people you criticize.