Seriously - so what? In what way does being a microstate make it any easier?
I can think of about 10 reasons off the top of my head that being a microstate makes it HARDER to pull off, not easier. You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.
Can't have all the benefits of capitalism without losing some of the "benefits" of totalitarianism. You can have some of one and lots of the other (like most Western democracies), but not lots of both.
You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no...
Considering we've seen WAY more cases of TSA malfeasance than we have seen terrorist attacks, is it really so surprising?
Just you watch - we'll see a new kind of pr0n from the pervs who brought us "up-skirt" - scanner pr0n.
Furthermore, these machines are obsolete before they are even deployed - they only see through clothing, not through the body and we've already had one case of an "ass bomber" in Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri this past september in Saudi Arabia. And while he mostly succeeding in killing only himself with little harm to others, that's because he detonated it in his ass. Even the underwear bomber spent 20 minutes in the lavatory getting ready - nothing to stop someone from taking the bomb out of their ass before detonating it on a plane. Get three or four of these guys on a plane and that's lot of bomb material sailing right past the latest billion dollars boondoggle.
Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.
And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed. Looked at that way, cars seem downright safe compared to say, being shot at in Afghanistan.
Duh. What's the point of comparing going into a warzone with riding in a car? Nearly any activity is going to be safer than that. How about a comparison of much more equivalent actions. Like say riding in a plane versus riding in a car? In the USA each time you go for a trip in a car you are roughly 300x more likely to die than each time you go for a trip in a commercial airplane.
Yet, a person being bad does not equal the book being bad. It can be, it can be correlation, but it is no must at all.
Oh come on! Why are so many people such dunces? Did you even read what I wrote? I never even implied that the book was bad.
All I said was that people who believe strongest in A seem to also be the strongest supporters of policies that destroy A. Some dumbass AC came along and said "that's not true, read this book B." From all available evidence -- including every review I could find and the publisher's own blurb -- book B says absolutely nothing about my original premise - all it does is described A and cheerlead for A which I may even agree with a small amount, but my slight agreement has got nothing to do with the premise of my original post. So as book B is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the AC who cited it was truly a dumbass.
However, in my research I did find that person X is a huge proponent of book B and anyone who has been paying attention to person X knows he's also a huge proponent of the very same policies described in this slashdot topic as being destructive to A. Hence all that dumbass AC did was bring to light a shining example of my original premise. He proved my point.
What I don't understand is why so many people like yourself are so willing to ignore the plainly stated argument I made and instead go off on some knee-jerk attack? Is it because you people are too damn lazy to research the book and instead took the word of a barely literate AC as an actual rebuttal to my point? Or are you too damn lazy to even parse the single sentence in which I laid out a dead-simple premise and so just ignorantly waded in posted with zero understanding of the topic? Just what is your damn collective problem?
This is ridiculous. Child porn laws need to differentiate between nude images and obscene/exploitative images. Hopefully this security debate will fuel a rethink.
They deliberately don't differentiate because they explicitly want to go after the people who get off on any form of nudity -- sometimes even just suggested nudity. Think of it as the pedo version of a teenager wanking it to national geographic or the lingerie section of the sears catalog. I would not be surprised at all if they make an exception for these scanners and it causes the creation of a whole new form of kiddie-scanner pedo porn.
All in all, the situation is just more proof that the pedo porn laws are totally out of whack - they are all about punishing people for being freaks, because it is easy to catch freaks. But catching the people who actually hurt kids is practically the last thing on the list of priorities because that takes hard work.
That's the whole point - rolling your own time handling routines means you aren't using things like tzdata, you may not even be on a platform where it exists...
And it's very much because people think it's simple, without looking at the actual issues.
Indeed. Time is one of the most problematic issues I've ever had to deal with in my career. There are just so many different special cases like leap years/seconds and corner cases like converting from one timezone to another in the middle of daylight savings time change in or both of those timezones. Somebody ought to write a paper, or even a book, on all the stuff you have to watch out for.
According to the article, the author himself thinks that the aboriginal Australians were sophisticated enough to recognize impact craters on the landscape, and what might have caused them, and concoct legends about falling objects to explain them.
With all due respect to the parent post, the Indigenous Australians may have great knowledge that has been dismissed by their Western colonizers, but this is not evidence of such.
So, figuring out what happened after the fact is not as impressive as witnessing it? Seems backwards to me.
Any chance this firmware update is first in an ongoing ploy to keep the encryption methods overhauled?
Unlikely. Blu-ray includes BD+ which is essentially a virtual machine that enables a publisher to add any arbitrary copy-prevention crap they want to to a disc - its just software that gets loaded into the player's BD+ vm when the disc is "booted." Fox is a big user of it and has already done at least two BD+ "systems" maybe more, I stopped counting.
What other storage medium has been crippled for the convenience of being able to sell *exactly* the same chip/disk at different capacities with very different prices?
Single-sided floppy disks. Not that it helps you much today...
Programming is a HUGE field. There is plenty of work that doesn't require significant math. Go with what interests you and let the details work themselves out.
Except that in the majority of these systems, the records ARE the real money.
Ok, let me be more precise - I would partition off the systems connected to the electronic funds transfer network from the rest of the systems. Requests for transfers would come across the data-diode and then require a manual confirmation in order to execute.
I don't really give a damn about the terrorist's rights and trying them in a NY courtroom
Apparently you don't understand that when terrorists and pedophiles and drug lords, and KKK murderers and billion dollar swindlers, etc receive the same justice as everyone else it isn't about *their* rights - it is about our society maintaining its standards of civilisation in the face of lesser people.
You might have a an arguable point if terrorists were really a threat that was, say 1000x more deadly than car accidents, but since they aren't anywhere near that, there should be no reason to get our shorts in a twist and react by throwing the fundamental tenets of our society - that which makes us better than the ancient roman empire and most other societies - out the window.
(giving KSM exactly what he has always wanted)
Apparently my briar patch reference went unheeded because that's precisely what you are advocating.
So, in your mind, being less worried about dying in a terrorist attack than you are worried about the 10000x more likely death in a car accident is being "macho?"
if the governments of the world, particularly those in Europe, would put aside their reluctance to admit that we have a problem with militant Islam and start killing the terrorists
Oh, whatever you do, don't throw me in the briar patch!
The fact that the bubble inflated to begin with is incontrovertible proof that it wasn't obviously a bubble.
Only if your criteria for "obvious" is that it be readily apparent to those with overwhelming fiscal and psychological motivations to believe otherwise.
Somewhere in this post thread, someone mentioned that Mr. Beck promotes a book, as a refutation of the quality of the book.
You are referring to me and you got it ALL wrong. The book was cited by a dumbass AC as disproving my premise that people who believe in American Exceptionalism seem to also be the people doing their darndest to destroy it. The dumbass AC cited a book that is basically a treatise on American Exceptionalism - as best as I can tell from reading about the book, it says nothing about how doing things like making it difficult for the best and the brightest foreigners to come to America might promote American Exceptionalism - it does not address the topic at all (hence the dumbass adjective).
However, Glenn Beck is widely known as one of those who supports those sorts of policies under the guise of preventing terrorism all out of proportion to the actual threat. It turns out he also is a huge fan of that book, thus the dumbass AC simply provided an example proving my original point by connecting the dots between Beck, and American Exceptionalism and the very quality-destroying policies he promotes.
Slashdot Mirror
Singapore is a microstate. China is anything but.
Back That Truck Up.
Seriously - so what? In what way does being a microstate make it any easier?
I can think of about 10 reasons off the top of my head that being a microstate makes it HARDER to pull off, not easier.
You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.
Can't have all the benefits of capitalism without losing some of the "benefits" of totalitarianism. You can have some of one and lots of the other (like most Western democracies), but not lots of both.
I think Singapore would beg to differ.
You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...
Considering we've seen WAY more cases of TSA malfeasance than we have seen terrorist attacks, is it really so surprising?
Just you watch - we'll see a new kind of pr0n from the pervs who brought us "up-skirt" - scanner pr0n.
Furthermore, these machines are obsolete before they are even deployed - they only see through clothing, not through the body and we've already had one case of an "ass bomber" in Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri this past september in Saudi Arabia. And while he mostly succeeding in killing only himself with little harm to others, that's because he detonated it in his ass. Even the underwear bomber spent 20 minutes in the lavatory getting ready - nothing to stop someone from taking the bomb out of their ass before detonating it on a plane. Get three or four of these guys on a plane and that's lot of bomb material sailing right past the latest billion dollars boondoggle.
Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.
If I drive one a day for a year and have one accident in that time, then my odds are 1/365.
WTF?
And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed. Looked at that way, cars seem downright safe compared to say, being shot at in Afghanistan.
Duh. What's the point of comparing going into a warzone with riding in a car? Nearly any activity is going to be safer than that.
How about a comparison of much more equivalent actions. Like say riding in a plane versus riding in a car?
In the USA each time you go for a trip in a car you are roughly 300x more likely to die than each time you go for a trip in a commercial airplane.
Yet, a person being bad does not equal the book being bad. It can be, it can be correlation, but it is no must at all.
Oh come on! Why are so many people such dunces? Did you even read what I wrote? I never even implied that the book was bad.
All I said was that people who believe strongest in A seem to also be the strongest supporters of policies that destroy A. Some dumbass AC came along and said "that's not true, read this book B." From all available evidence -- including every review I could find and the publisher's own blurb -- book B says absolutely nothing about my original premise - all it does is described A and cheerlead for A which I may even agree with a small amount, but my slight agreement has got nothing to do with the premise of my original post. So as book B is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the AC who cited it was truly a dumbass.
However, in my research I did find that person X is a huge proponent of book B and anyone who has been paying attention to person X knows he's also a huge proponent of the very same policies described in this slashdot topic as being destructive to A. Hence all that dumbass AC did was bring to light a shining example of my original premise. He proved my point.
What I don't understand is why so many people like yourself are so willing to ignore the plainly stated argument I made and instead go off on some knee-jerk attack? Is it because you people are too damn lazy to research the book and instead took the word of a barely literate AC as an actual rebuttal to my point? Or are you too damn lazy to even parse the single sentence in which I laid out a dead-simple premise and so just ignorantly waded in posted with zero understanding of the topic? Just what is your damn collective problem?
This is ridiculous. Child porn laws need to differentiate between nude images and obscene/exploitative images. Hopefully this security debate will fuel a rethink.
They deliberately don't differentiate because they explicitly want to go after the people who get off on any form of nudity -- sometimes even just suggested nudity.
Think of it as the pedo version of a teenager wanking it to national geographic or the lingerie section of the sears catalog.
I would not be surprised at all if they make an exception for these scanners and it causes the creation of a whole new form of kiddie-scanner pedo porn.
All in all, the situation is just more proof that the pedo porn laws are totally out of whack - they are all about punishing people for being freaks, because it is easy to catch freaks. But catching the people who actually hurt kids is practically the last thing on the list of priorities because that takes hard work.
That's the whole point - rolling your own time handling routines means you aren't using things like tzdata, you may not even be on a platform where it exists...
No one want's to have to deal with 3-D that requires you wear glasses or contact lenses or what not,
The expectation is that in roughly 5 years consumer-grade displays will be able to do 3D without the need for any glasses.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/16/hitachi-exhibits-10-inch-glasses-free-3d-display/
http://hd.engadget.com/2009/05/11/ny-storefront-hosts-the-first-no-glasses-3d-lcd-ad/
They reinforced it with blasts of scented air and sprinkling water, which is a bit beyond anything that'll show up in most theaters anytime soon.
Just sit in front of the guy drinking beer and belching.
And it's very much because people think it's simple, without looking at the actual issues.
Indeed. Time is one of the most problematic issues I've ever had to deal with in my career. There are just so many different special cases like leap years/seconds and corner cases like converting from one timezone to another in the middle of daylight savings time change in or both of those timezones. Somebody ought to write a paper, or even a book, on all the stuff you have to watch out for.
According to the article, the author himself thinks that the aboriginal Australians were sophisticated enough to recognize impact craters on the landscape, and what might have caused them, and concoct legends about falling objects to explain them.
With all due respect to the parent post, the Indigenous Australians may have great knowledge that has been dismissed by their Western colonizers, but this is not evidence of such.
So, figuring out what happened after the fact is not as impressive as witnessing it?
Seems backwards to me.
Any chance this firmware update is first in an ongoing ploy to keep the encryption methods overhauled?
Unlikely. Blu-ray includes BD+ which is essentially a virtual machine that enables a publisher to add any arbitrary copy-prevention crap they want to to a disc - its just software that gets loaded into the player's BD+ vm when the disc is "booted." Fox is a big user of it and has already done at least two BD+ "systems" maybe more, I stopped counting.
You know, you could have just said "how about without file compression?" instead of being a dick about it.
But, as quite a few women will tell you if you ask the right way, dicks can be a lot of fun.
What other storage medium has been crippled for the convenience of being able to sell *exactly* the same chip/disk at different capacities with very different prices?
Single-sided floppy disks.
Not that it helps you much today...
Programming is a HUGE field. There is plenty of work that doesn't require significant math.
Go with what interests you and let the details work themselves out.
Except that in the majority of these systems, the records ARE the real money.
Ok, let me be more precise - I would partition off the systems connected to the electronic funds transfer network from the rest of the systems. Requests for transfers would come across the data-diode and then require a manual confirmation in order to execute.
It's like, I have total access to hundreds of accounts, after cracking open your system security, but I did not take anything?
Maybe they had an air-gap firewall, or at least a data diode.
If I were running that sort of network, that's what I would use to partition off the real money from the record keeping.
I don't really give a damn about the terrorist's rights and trying them in a NY courtroom
Apparently you don't understand that when terrorists and pedophiles and drug lords, and KKK murderers and billion dollar swindlers, etc receive the same justice as everyone else it isn't about *their* rights - it is about our society maintaining its standards of civilisation in the face of lesser people.
You might have a an arguable point if terrorists were really a threat that was, say 1000x more deadly than car accidents, but since they aren't anywhere near that, there should be no reason to get our shorts in a twist and react by throwing the fundamental tenets of our society - that which makes us better than the ancient roman empire and most other societies - out the window.
(giving KSM exactly what he has always wanted)
Apparently my briar patch reference went unheeded because that's precisely what you are advocating.
I would be more amenable to the "macho" argument
So, in your mind, being less worried about dying in a terrorist attack than you are worried about the 10000x more likely death in a car accident is being "macho?"
if the governments of the world, particularly those in Europe, would put aside their reluctance to admit that we have a problem with militant Islam and start killing the terrorists
Oh, whatever you do, don't throw me in the briar patch!
My pizza analogy asks why feelings on copyright law cannot be extended to physical objects using the poster's and your reasoning.
Irrelevant to your initial defense which was all I cared about addressing. You want to expand the scope of your argument -- do it with someone else.
PS, educate yourself about excludability and rivalry so that when you do make an argument based on those topics you can use the correct terminology.
Society as a whole, not you and your personal feelings.
AH, so you admit he is not making that decision "on those artists behalf," he's doing it for society - a group he is himself a part of.
Please read what I wrote about pizza, and explain the difference.
Irrelevant.
The fact that the bubble inflated to begin with is incontrovertible proof that it wasn't obviously a bubble.
Only if your criteria for "obvious" is that it be readily apparent to those with overwhelming fiscal and psychological motivations to believe otherwise.
Irrelevent. The question posed was not "should the law be changed" but "should you break the law".
Relevant because your rebuttal was based solely on the presumptive right to copyright in the first place.
Somewhere in this post thread, someone mentioned that Mr. Beck promotes a book, as a refutation of the quality of the book.
You are referring to me and you got it ALL wrong. The book was cited by a dumbass AC as disproving my premise that people who believe in American Exceptionalism seem to also be the people doing their darndest to destroy it. The dumbass AC cited a book that is basically a treatise on American Exceptionalism - as best as I can tell from reading about the book, it says nothing about how doing things like making it difficult for the best and the brightest foreigners to come to America might promote American Exceptionalism - it does not address the topic at all (hence the dumbass adjective).
However, Glenn Beck is widely known as one of those who supports those sorts of policies under the guise of preventing terrorism all out of proportion to the actual threat. It turns out he also is a huge fan of that book, thus the dumbass AC simply provided an example proving my original point by connecting the dots between Beck, and American Exceptionalism and the very quality-destroying policies he promotes.