Right, the world would be so much better if Saddam Hussein was still in power./s Well, we can be pretty sure that less American soldiers and by far less Iraqis would have died in the last 5 years. There is also a good chance that Iran would not feel like they must have nukes in order be safe from invasion by the USA.
So yeah, the world would probably be much better if Saddam were still in power.
You post a lot of words, and zero links of proof. You want him to post a link to advertising and promotions he claims don't exist? Which world is that you live in?
Sales on consoles are higher, not because there are more consoles on the market than PCs, but because PC [piracy] is far higher than console piracy. That's an awful big leap of logic on your part, got some supporting evidence for it?
The only thing you can do with a console is play games, thus anyone who has one is going to buy games and nothing else. Whereas most PCs never even run a game beyond solitare. Even the home PCs that are used for games are only used that way part time - I think you would be hard pressed to find a PC that was used for games more than it was used for general web-browsing never mind word-processing and other home-pc tasks.
In other words, the competition on PCs is much greater than it is on consoles because not only do you compete with all the other games, you also compete with all the other uses for a PC.
If you distribute baking soda (sell/give away/etc) and tell people that its crack, you can be arrested and held to the same liabilities as if you had actually sold crack Surprise! Other parts of the US legal code are EVEN MORE fucked up than Title 17!
These days, it seems that the phrase DMCA Takedown is used as a generic term by lots of people, Really? Show me two cases where something purporting to be a news article used the phrase in error. I've seen plenty of cases where the lawyers used the DMCA in error, but not one where it was reported in error.
FWIW, another article covering this same press-release noted that most flash costs $2.50/Mbit to manufacture, but this new stuff by Intel costs just under $1/Mbit to manufacture. So the rapid downward spiral of flash storage pricing should continue for at least the short term.
Falsifying a DMCA claim is a federal offense - you really don't want to get caught doing that. Yet, this is far from the first time a BigCorp as issued a DMCA takedown notice for material is clearly did not own the rights too. But I've never heard of a single prosecution over such fraud.
Whether all that is true or not, its moot. The DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copright Act, not the Digital Millenium Privacy Act. There is no such thing as a DMPA takedown notice.
When are we going to consider it an act of war and bomb them back to the stone age Congratulations. You are doing exactly what the publishers of the article wanted you to do - go apeshit over innuendo. The article had zero proof, but lots and lots of speculation about China causing power outages. You know what speculation is, right? Its just bullshit they want to trick you into believing without actually outright lying.
Not to mention that it's also much cheaper than sic'ing the lawyers other Not just cheaper, but geeks get hired instead of the lawyers. A win for all non-lawyers, geek or not.
Who are you or I to say that they are wrong? I think we are right to say they are wrong because a lack of freedom eventually leads to reductions in comfort and increases in hardship. For example, see Amartya Sen's Nobel-winning research into the cause of famine -- he found that almost universally famine has been caused by leaders who were not accountable to the population (in a nut-shell, the leaders never want for food so without accountability they have little motive to fix the problems that lead to food shortages for the regular people). I feel confident in saying that a country can not have accountable leaders unless the population is free.
I don't agree. A whole lot of advertising is about generating demand -- not finding it, but generating it. The goal is to convince people that they must buy stuff they've never even considered buying before. That attitude will assure that annoying advertising will always be with us.
I expect that 'targeted' advertising will become just another version of 'the suckers list' - that's the list a boiler-room (aka scam) company keeps of the suckers who fell for their last scam because chances are if you could convince (aka trick) them into wasting money once, then chances are you can trick them again.
Anyway, there was blatantly no net neutrality in the first place. I am not sure what you mean by "first place" - as in pre ATT-breakup?
Because there certainly WAS net neutrality in the USA up until just recently, 2005 in fact, when the SCOTUS ruled that ISPs provide "information services" rather than "telecommunications services." The net effect was that the "tariffs" (fancy word for rules) that insure network neutrality on the phone network (aka a telecommunication service) no longer applied to ISPs. You'll note that it was in late 2005 - right after the ruling in fact - when all the ISPs started making noise about "google using our networks for free" etc, etc.
These guys come up to Mohamed and say "So, if we were to hypothetically rape some of the prisoners, would it be cool to pull out?" And he says "No problem." Read it again. Where does it say "hypothetically rape someone?" It only says they asked about pulling out. If you follow that link and read further, the same event is reported multiple times by multiple scholars, and most of them don't report any discussion of prisoners at all, much less directly with mohamed. Hell, the section is even labeled something like "On Pulling Out" and its in the "book of marriage." Its no war manual or anything of the sort.
True, I suppose you could counter argue that this is merely our culture and our norms, and that you see no reason for a commander to take responsibility for the widespread and notorious actions of his troops. You do realize the inherent bias in your statement right? Your basic assumption is that PuRplEDorK's accusation is true. Where does the quotation say that raping prisoners was "widespread and notorious?"
Islam's got a lot of explicit prohibitions against rape. PuRpLeDoRK is absolutely grasping for straws when he says that this quotation shows that Mohammed both knew and approved of these two soldier's actions and that this hadith therefore blesses the practice of raping prisoners.
When I wrote "You clearly want to say that because mohamed was commander of this army, he was responsible for everything anyone did while under his command... Get real, that's not how it works." I was referring to the explicit muslim belief that the "strong hadiths" are essentially mandates and that PuRplEDoRK's attempt to say that a specific event which mohamed did not authorize, did not witness but just happened to be committed by people under his command is somehow a mandate of islamic belief. That's not how hadiths work.
ad hominems really aren't impressive. They don't bolster your argument the way you think they do. They just make you look like, in your words, "a fool". I ain't trying to impress, I am just eventing because he is so fucking distasteful. And if you didn't get it yet, I really don't like religion, never really felt the need. But what I find disgusting are people essentially making up bullshit so that they can dehumanize others - that shit lays the groundwork for war and genocide and needs to be challenged whenever it rears its ugly head.
He both ordered the capture of these women (as you say), he oversaw their imprisonment (that would be including rape), and oversaw their impregnation. It wasn't some big prisoner orgy where the guy actually pulled his dick out, looked over at mohamed getting his freak on with another prisoner and asked him if he should stick it back in or not.
Let's hear you say that president bush has no responsability at all for what happened to those women So, why is it that Bush has taken absolutely no responsibility for the rapes at Abu Ghraib? After all, he is commander in chief, he ordered the attack on the country, the capture of those men, their imprisonment and their torture (that would be including rape)?
No they can't. They can contract with a contractor to develop a piece of code, but the government cannot develop something and then give it to a corporation. If government employees are building it, it's public domain. That's the nature of US law. You presume that the employees are not employees of a contractor who have been emplaced at the government agency.
There is nothing to be done to release it into the public domain as it's already there. The legal problem comes from the fact that it is a derivative of a GPLed program. I think you will find that a set of is not a derivative work because it does not contain the original work.
So he allowed, in his presence, muslims to impregnate captured women, You know how you know you're lying to yourself? When all you can do is say, "nuh-uh" without any supporting proof whatsover. That would be the cognitive dissonance kicking your ass.
I repeat from my previous postings: the only thing that happened in his presence was being asked about pulling out.
You clearly want to say that because mohamed was commander of this army, he was responsible for everything anyone did while under his command and thus everything anyone did while in mohamed's army is fair game for any muslim to do. Get real, that's not how it works.
Furthermore, I ask you - IS THAT THE BEST YOU'VE GOT? Trying to argue that what a quotation might imply if you were looking for the absolute worst possible interpretation is your strongest argument that islam is evil? Weak.
PS,
impregnate captured women ... Come to think of it, that's one of the things terrorists still do today. Citation?
So what your saying this that the people that Mo followers wern't asking if rape was wrong... they aren't worried about that. Some soldiers rape. Show me one army, even a modern army, where that has never happened. Or do you condemn all nations and all people because of the misdeeds of a few?
Slashdot Mirror
There is also a good chance that Iran would not feel like they must have nukes in order be safe from invasion by the USA.
So yeah, the world would probably be much better if Saddam were still in power.
Which world is that you live in?
The only thing you can do with a console is play games, thus anyone who has one is going to buy games and nothing else. Whereas most PCs never even run a game beyond solitare. Even the home PCs that are used for games are only used that way part time - I think you would be hard pressed to find a PC that was used for games more than it was used for general web-browsing never mind word-processing and other home-pc tasks.
In other words, the competition on PCs is much greater than it is on consoles because not only do you compete with all the other games, you also compete with all the other uses for a PC.
I sense a pattern here!
I've seen plenty of cases where the lawyers used the DMCA in error, but not one where it was reported in error.
FWIW, another article covering this same press-release noted that most flash costs $2.50/Mbit to manufacture, but this new stuff by Intel costs just under $1/Mbit to manufacture. So the rapid downward spiral of flash storage pricing should continue for at least the short term.
True.
If you don't have the balls to do your delivery straight and suffer the downmods of the ignorant, you don't deserve upmods either.
Whether all that is true or not, its moot.
The DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copright Act, not the Digital Millenium Privacy Act.
There is no such thing as a DMPA takedown notice.
I don't agree. A whole lot of advertising is about generating demand -- not finding it, but generating it. The goal is to convince people that they must buy stuff they've never even considered buying before. That attitude will assure that annoying advertising will always be with us.
I expect that 'targeted' advertising will become just another version of 'the suckers list' - that's the list a boiler-room (aka scam) company keeps of the suckers who fell for their last scam because chances are if you could convince (aka trick) them into wasting money once, then chances are you can trick them again.
Because there certainly WAS net neutrality in the USA up until just recently, 2005 in fact, when the SCOTUS ruled that ISPs provide "information services" rather than "telecommunications services." The net effect was that the "tariffs" (fancy word for rules) that insure network neutrality on the phone network (aka a telecommunication service) no longer applied to ISPs. You'll note that it was in late 2005 - right after the ruling in fact - when all the ISPs started making noise about "google using our networks for free" etc, etc.
fixed
that
for
ya!
Best bomb to drop on California: The Nude Bomb
Worst bomb to drop on DC: The Nude Bomb
Put all your important data on one of these - or better yet, don't rip the cable up - leave it alone so it looks like any other cable.
Islam's got a lot of explicit prohibitions against rape. PuRpLeDoRK is absolutely grasping for straws when he says that this quotation shows that Mohammed both knew and approved of these two soldier's actions and that this hadith therefore blesses the practice of raping prisoners.
When I wrote "You clearly want to say that because mohamed was commander of this army, he was responsible for everything anyone did while under his command
And if you didn't get it yet, I really don't like religion, never really felt the need. But what I find disgusting are people essentially making up bullshit so that they can dehumanize others - that shit lays the groundwork for war and genocide and needs to be challenged whenever it rears its ugly head.
After all, he is commander in chief, he ordered the attack on the country, the capture of those men, their imprisonment and their torture (that would be including rape)?
Let's see, I'm curious.
I repeat from my previous postings:
the only thing that happened in his presence was being asked about pulling out.
You clearly want to say that because mohamed was commander of this army, he was responsible for everything anyone did while under his command and thus everything anyone did while in mohamed's army is fair game for any muslim to do. Get real, that's not how it works.
Furthermore, I ask you - IS THAT THE BEST YOU'VE GOT?
Trying to argue that what a quotation might imply if you were looking for the absolute worst possible interpretation is your strongest argument that islam is evil?
Weak.
PS, impregnate captured women
...
Come to think of it, that's one of the things terrorists still do today. Citation?