Again, Slashdotters don't want record companies to get the benefits of copyright law (piracy), but want them reserved for themselves (GPL).
Again. you've got that wrong. The GPL is just a hack of copyright law. In a market without copyrights where most software came with the source code, there would be no need for a GPL because the market would value the Free software over the proprietary. In the same way that car makers could sell cars with the hood welded shut, but the higher value of owner access to the engine means that the competition would quickly kill any such welded-shut products.
For the record, I think DVD regions are a big bag of shit. I will never buy a regionless player. If there's a point where that's all that are sold, I just won't buy any.
Huh? Are you saying that you voluntarily enforce the region-locking on yourself? That you would never buy a region-free player? What possible benefit is there to you in doing so?
I'm not going to a "hindu website," per se, just using Google.
You quoted from a hindu website, what, you think google only indexes unbiased sources?
The Hedaya (or al Hidayah), states that jizya means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat
So, just how exactly does picking just one of the points of view presented there disprove the other, particularly the one held in the majority? Yeah sure you can IGNORE it, but which actually makes more sense? Do you think non-muslims should just get a free ride in a muslim state?
Perhaps you can inform us whether zakat must also be paid under penalty of death?
How about you use that thar google thang to answer the question for you? Or perhaps you did and you already know the answer is yes. There are plenty of cases where zakat was required by force. Do you think the IRS will just let you go if you don't pay tax in the USA?
Furthermore, even without google, if you thought about it for just a second you would see that it is obvious. Zakat is one of the 5 pillars if islam. If you can pay it but you do not pay it, then you are not a muslim. If you are not muslim, them you pay jizyah. Capiche?
here was a catastrophic failure during the 1950's which lead to a major redesign and fortification of the who dyke system.
At which point the Dutch, recognizing the importance of dykes to their society, becoming the first nation to legalize gay marriage, giving dykes all the same legal rights and privileges as straits.
I personally know 15 middle-eastern men and women Muslims that moved to the USA. The Muslims of the middle east hate Christians, Jews, Hindus, basically anyone that is not Muslim.
So, these 15 men and women that you know, they hate christains, jews, hindus and everyone else that is not a muslim? Because that's exactly what you said, chump. Do you YET see the logical fallacy of your claims?
The majority of the USA does not want to kill someone because they practice a different religion or no religion at all.
Bada-fucking-bing! And just why do you think muslims are any different?
Oh, and the old "it is an old tradition" excuse for perpetuating the discrimination of women in Middle Eastern Islam. How quaint.
What? Had too many beers tonight that you can't even tell the difference between "joe is not an abuser" and "abuse is ok"? Just where the FUCK do you see me EXCUSING those actions? Clearly my FUCK YOU was more than prescient since you are calling me an apologist for the abuse of women.
That has to be one of _the_ dumbest things I have ever heard
Clearly then, you do not read what you write. Maybe I am wrong and your neighbor really does hate your guts, after reading what you keep spewing, I wouldn't blame him.
I posted were not just a few "nutz on the fringe". It was their freaking government.
The most regressive islamic regimes staring with the worst are:
0) The Taliban 1) Iran 2) Saudia Arabia
When you are second to the Taliban, rule by force and not by popular vote, you are the few nutz on the fringe.
My statements were not about all Muslims (if it sounded that way then I apologize).
It sure as hell did sound that way, how else would you interpret "the the sickness of Islam doesn't end there." If you really did not mean to talk about all muslims, why didn't you say something like, "the sickness of totalitarian theocracies doesn't end there?"
The Muslims of the middle east hate Christians, Jews, Hindus, basically anyone that is not Muslim.
Right there you are so far off the mark that it is ridiculous. How many middle-eastern muslims do you know? Sounds like the answer is zero. How much tv do you watch? Sounds like the answer is way too much. How much of it is foreign-sourced versus American-sourced? I'd wager close to zero.
You really need to take my comments about the KKK being representative of white Americans to heart, because that is EXACTLY the logical fallacy you are promoting with your ignorant, bombastic claims.
Oh and fuck you with your charges of being PC and "side-stepping" the issues of abuse of women in the middle east. If you knew shit about the topic you would know that these abuses stem as much from tribal beliefs that predate islam as they do from extremists within the religion, its just reactionaries that seek whatever cover they can find in islam to justify their own personal fucked up morality.
There is an arabic saying, much like Shakespeare's- "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," that "tribalists cover their actions with the cloak of islam." On the other hand, the reactionary response to problems like tribalism has been puritanical sects like salafism which can be just as easily do the same kinds of evil acts with a whole different bizarre intrepretation of islam. However, neither are mainstream islam, in the middle east or anywhere else.
A hindu website is hardly the place to go for an unbiased account of islam. There is no shortage of documents on the web that seek to portray any religion as heinous. I suggest you look for sources that at least try to be unbiased.
Even so, at least you've been able to go from "islam adovocates violence against non muslims" to "islam inflicts taxation without representation." That's a lot of progress for an infidel to make in the time between two posts.
First, verse 30 is about Ezra and Jesus really doesn't apply - "may Allah destroy them" is not "you destroy them in the name of Allah." Other translations make this more clear by saying things like "Allah's curse be upon them" instead.
Verse 29 is about the jizyah which is essentially the non-muslim version of zakat - a roughly 10% tithe. The way it works is that zakat supports the operation of the islamic state, if you live in an islamic state, but you don't pay zakat because you aren't muslim, you still have to do your part to support the government because you are still provided the basic services of government regardless of your religion.
To say that verse 29 justifies violence against non-muslims is like saying that the 16th amendment justifies violence against all US citizens.
The goal is to continue to reduce the risk of a back-end data exposure.
Sure, today they promise that they only want to do biometrics on my face and fingers. But its just the tip of the slippery slope. You know we can't trust them. Just like the social security cards used to all say "not to be used for identification" and look what good that did.
I say that if we don't fight these biometric overlords, it is only a matter of time before they are forcing us to sit naked on copiers so they can xerox our asses! Make a stand now while you still have some dignity, and your pants!
Its fuckers like you who say shit like that that really piss me off.
Those acts are no more about Islam than Pat Robertson calling for the assasination of Hugo Chaves is about Christianity and it doesn't stop there. Any mainstream religion will have plenty of nutz on the fringe who will do whatever evil they fucking want to and then blame it on their god. That doesn't, in any way, invalidate the religion, it just proves that evil will use whatever tool it can.
With over a billion muslims in the world, it is just plain stupid to judge them based on the actions of the most extreme fringes of their society. How would you feel if all white people in the world were treated as if the actions and beliefs of the KKK were their own actions and beliefs?
copyright law already gives the author of a work absolute and complete control of how it is used
This one statement is the basis of your entire argument. The problem with it is that it is dead wrong.
Copyright law gives you nothing. Enforcement of copyright is what gives you what, if any, control you have. The thing is, the times have changed. Enforcement was never easy, but now violating copyright has gone from being unrealistically dificult to the common and mundane. That makes enforcement practically impossible - while the ability to catch and punish violators has remained approximately constant, the number of violators has sky-rocketed.
The creative commons licenses are a practical admission of the current reality. If people are going to copy your shit no matter what you do, you might as well accept it, get over it and make the best of it. The CC licenses are just one approach to doing exactly that.
You can fight human nature, but in the long run, you will always lose.
And, of course, as the parent says, it is possible that the bot contains an exploitable flaw. The bot creator goes to sleep, someone on the net recognises the flaw and posts about it in a newsgroup, and by the time the bot creator awakes he is broke. I would not sleep soundly with a bot playing with my money.
I doubt that would happen. It's the online gambling equivalent of posting a misprice to fatwallet.com. Except that online merchants are big slow and stupid and most still haven't figured out how detect hordes of people taking advantage of a misprice. Most still aren't smart enough to page a human when there is an abnormal spike in the sales numbers for an item.
For a poker-bot, it is simple to prevent large scale exploitation of a flaw - give the bot a sanity check. If it loses more than $X, then it stops playing and pages a real human to check things out. There will probably be false positives due to the nature of gaussian distributions but experience ought to indicate what a good enough value for $X is to minimize those false positives and still make automated playing profitable.
Currently the amount of traffic flowing between nations is approximately one terabit per second.... Much of the growth over the last few years has come about because of the rise in the popularity of file-sharing that encourages people to swap and share large media files, said Mr Mauldin.
It's me. In the last five years, I've discovered foreign cinema way beyond what's domestically available. Fortunately my fellow humans in France, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Russia are just fine with breaking their laws to share their countries movies with me. So, I'm doing about a terabit per second of foreign movie downloads nowadays.
With all of the hollywood remakes and imports recently (Ring, Dark Water, The Departed, Shall we Dance, Hero, House of Flying Daggers, etc, etc) it really is nice to be able to see the original movies when they are first released in their own countries. Not to mention the stuff that is so beyond American sensabilities that it will never make it to the big screen over here (Oldboy, Audition, Visitor Q, etc).
Sure, I end up watching some crap, but when its free that's not a problem, and when I do find something extraordinarily good, it then makes it worthwhile to go order a real high-quality DVD from one of those websites that is mostly non-English and still be assured that I am getting good value for my money. And sometimes the movies actually do make it here with a domestic DVD release, something that was exceptionally rare back in the days of vhs before the net was widespread.
Where do you start? Especially when you concider that companies don't like investing in training, because it means they might have to pay you more (and if they don't you'll move companies).
Internships. I make more money than I would ever publically admit to and I blame it all on my college internship. You work for peanuts, or even free, but you gain all that useful on the job experience. Some do it part time and continue to take regular classes, some do it full time for a semester or two. Usually you can earn credits for the work too.
If you are smart and get in the right internship, you can shave 5+ years off your after-college-earning-curve. If you are lucky, you can find the right niche and really exploit it to the hilt.
the courts have determined that viewing something in plain sight in a public place is not an unreasonable search.
Viewing is a whole hell of a lot different from recording, archiving and cataloging.
a) The Vatican set aside, so what? Are governments the only ones who can be held accountable for terrorist actions?
b) Want to make a bet? PETA has certainly donated money to ELF, which the FBI considers a domestic terrorist group.
In either case, the US government is not encouraging business relationships with those groups, while they are just as gung-ho as ever to support domestic business relationships with the Saudis.
Are you telling me you know the intentions of leaders of foreign governments? I hope you work for the CIA, that clairvoyance will come in handy in preventing the next terrorist attack.
No clairvoyance required, the CIA can read public news articles and analysis just as well as I can.
the freedom to be invisible in a public place (such as the NYC subways) is long gone. In fact, it never existed in the first place.
You greatly exaggerate my point in order to build up a strawman. I never said a thing about "freedom to be invisible" but I will say that these networked cameras are an unreasonable search. When the bill of rights was drafted, no one could have even conceived of such tools backed by databases and networks in the hands of the state. Thus, while it may not be popular opinion with the courts, I feel confident in believing that the authors of the bill of rights would consider them a direct violation our right to be secure in our person from unreasonable searches.
You could make the same connections between PETA and ALF/ELF or the Catholic Church and the guys who bomb abortion clinics.
Hardly. Furthermore, in both or your examples they are a) not a government and b) not directly funding terrorist groups.
I find it ironic that you think surveillence cameras are an intolerable breach of our human rights, but that people should be considered guilty of a crime just because they have similar viewpoints of the actual perpetrators.
Again you grossly exaggerate my point so as give yourself a pathetic strawman to break down. Of the two of us, I'm pretty sure I am a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the common muslim man and woman.
The point, again, is that the Saudi government is directly supporting an extremist group that is directly connected to all of the major terrorist attacks in the west and most of them in the east too. In many cases, this support is intended to redirect the blame they desevere for their part in the state of the middle-east squarely onto the shoulders of the west.
In case you are interested in real history, bin Laden and the Saudi government are not on good terms. He is still pissed at them for choosing the Americans instead of him to protect them back in '91.
I'm pretty sure I know more about bin Laden and his association with the house of Saud than you do. Just because bin Laden has personal issues with the Saudi royal family doesn't mean that al queada is in any way adverse to using the money and the actions of the Saudis to further their goals of propaganda.
Well, now that we're a few years in, can you honestly say it has affected your life?
Absolutely. In many ways, and none for the better.
One small example - green lasers. There was a rash of reported laserings of airplane cockpits over the last year. Despite significant reasons to doubt many of the reports such as pilots obviously mistaking other natural phenomenon like st elmo's fire for a green laser as well as the physics of hitting and stabling tracking an airplane cockpit for any length of time.
The result? One guy in NJ gets arrested and detained under the patriot act for shining his laser into the sky at a helicopter and a mass crackdown on green laser sellers plus monitoring of forums like the lasers forum at candlepowerforum.com. Sure, the guy was a dumbass, but there was NO need to invoke the patriot act on him.
So, because I own and talk about legally using a high-powered green laser I am now listed in at least one government agency's files and am that much closer to being detained without access to a lawyer if I end up caught up in the wrong set of circumstances.
Meanwhile, the appropriate question you should have asked about the patriot act is - how has this constitution-trampling act benefited your life?
The answer is -- in no measurable way. There has not yet been a single actual terrorist caught and charged with the provisions of the patriot act. Instead its use has warped for all kinds of tasks which the party line said it would never be used for. Mr laser for example, drug enforcement, organized crime, etc. Stuff we already had plenty of laws on the books for.
I just refuse to believe that the politicians are sitting in a room rubbing their hands together with a devilish grin as they brainstorm as to how they're gonna fuck with the commoners.'
Again bogus analogies. It is far simpler than that, no conspiracy necessary. It is just a bunch of people who believe that they can do no wrong and thus wish to mandate that they be trusted to do no wrong. Good intentions all around. Except that these people willfully ignore the lessons of history that power corrupts. The more power they take for themselves the more corrupt the organizations will eventually become. Maybe not today (although I consider the reported mis-uses of the patriot act to already be clear corruption) and maybe not even tomorrow. But eventually, and more than likely SOON.
Corruption and abuse of power is a fundamental law of human nature applicable to any organization. It's why the constitution was a model of checks and balances. Tearing down those checks and balances can only increase the amount of corruption.
You can already be highly tracked the way it is if you're using a cell phone or even credit/debit cards. And it's not really any different
So if we can already be "highly tracked" like that, why do we need another way to be tracked? You apologists always make the argument that, "we've already lost our privacy so what's the point of fighting it?" But if that were true, the powers that want more power would not be pushing for these additional encroachments.
Should we ban "tourists taking pictures?" Ease up on the tinfoil.
Ease up on the bogus analogies.
Your attempt to belittle my point does absolutely nothing to address the fact that networks of closed circuit tv cameras are a very high price for very little gain in actual safety.
Do you actually want to throw away your heritage for nothing? No? Then why the fuck are you supporting doing just that?
I work as a CCTV operator here in London, we do traffic enforcement, which is what most of the cameras are for. Everything we do is tightly regulated by the Human Rights Act (1988) and the Data Protection Act (1998) and a comprehensive Code of Practice. We have to respect privacy (or be sacked!)
That's all well and good. But what happens when those human rights laws are repealed, freeing you guys up to do the formerly forbidden in the name of the new law?
If we had a two hundred million solution to all terrorist attacks, I would be pissed off that it hadn't already been implemented.
The price isn't just $200 million. The price is a significant chunk of our freedom. The value of that is immeasurably large.
What has happened to our "America, home of the free and land of the brave" that we should willingly throw away our freedom for such meaningless scraps of false security? We cower in terror at the mere thought of an attack that hasn't even happened once on our soil. Why are we so ready to give up our freedom for "protection" that is a) applicable to only one kind of attack and b) only useful after the fact?
So, when we really do see an attack of a different nature, how much more freedom would you have us give up in response? When we get to the point where we have no more freedom left at all, do you think that will be enough to protect the cowards among us?
And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.
Saudi Arabia is by large the primary source of Salafism, a branch of Sunni Islam that is just a hairsbreadth away from readily justifying terrrorist attacks. Almost all government officials (aka members of the house of Saud) are Salafi themselves. There is a direct connection between Salafiyyah as exported (with state dollars) by Saudi Arabia and islamic terrorism in the west.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, Slashdotters don't want record companies to get the benefits of copyright law (piracy), but want them reserved for themselves (GPL).
Again. you've got that wrong. The GPL is just a hack of copyright law. In a market without copyrights where most software came with the source code, there would be no need for a GPL because the market would value the Free software over the proprietary. In the same way that car makers could sell cars with the hood welded shut, but the higher value of owner access to the engine means that the competition would quickly kill any such welded-shut products.
For the record, I think DVD regions are a big bag of shit. I will never buy a regionless player. If there's a point where that's all that are sold, I just won't buy any.
Huh? Are you saying that you voluntarily enforce the region-locking on yourself? That you would never buy a region-free player? What possible benefit is there to you in doing so?
Dunno what you are talking about, you are the only one who said anything about, "espousing death for failing to make a monetary payment."
Looks like, despite all your protestations to the contrary, your mind was made up long before you posted.
Thanks man, I wish you did too because those who did have mod points appear to be without a sense of humour.
I'm not going to a "hindu website," per se, just using Google.
You quoted from a hindu website, what, you think google only indexes unbiased sources?
The Hedaya (or al Hidayah), states that jizya means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat
So, just how exactly does picking just one of the points of view presented there disprove the other, particularly the one held in the majority? Yeah sure you can IGNORE it, but which actually makes more sense? Do you think non-muslims should just get a free ride in a muslim state?
Perhaps you can inform us whether zakat must also be paid under penalty of death?
How about you use that thar google thang to answer the question for you? Or perhaps you did and you already know the answer is yes. There are plenty of cases where zakat was required by force. Do you think the IRS will just let you go if you don't pay tax in the USA?
Furthermore, even without google, if you thought about it for just a second you would see that it is obvious. Zakat is one of the 5 pillars if islam. If you can pay it but you do not pay it, then you are not a muslim. If you are not muslim, them you pay jizyah. Capiche?
You are twisting in the wind on this one.
here was a catastrophic failure during the 1950's which lead to a major redesign and fortification of the who dyke system.
At which point the Dutch, recognizing the importance of dykes to their society, becoming the first nation to legalize gay marriage, giving dykes all the same legal rights and privileges as straits.
I personally know 15 middle-eastern men and women Muslims that moved to the USA. The Muslims of the middle east hate Christians, Jews, Hindus, basically anyone that is not Muslim.
So, these 15 men and women that you know, they hate christains, jews, hindus and everyone else that is not a muslim? Because that's exactly what you said, chump. Do you YET see the logical fallacy of your claims?
The majority of the USA does not want to kill someone because they practice a different religion or no religion at all.
Bada-fucking-bing! And just why do you think muslims are any different?
Oh, and the old "it is an old tradition" excuse for perpetuating the discrimination of women in Middle Eastern Islam. How quaint.
What? Had too many beers tonight that you can't even tell the difference between "joe is not an abuser" and "abuse is ok"? Just where the FUCK do you see me EXCUSING those actions? Clearly my FUCK YOU was more than prescient since you are calling me an apologist for the abuse of women.
That has to be one of _the_ dumbest things I have ever heard
Clearly then, you do not read what you write. Maybe I am wrong and your neighbor really does hate your guts, after reading what you keep spewing, I wouldn't blame him.
I posted were not just a few "nutz on the fringe". It was their freaking government.
The most regressive islamic regimes staring with the worst are:
0) The Taliban
1) Iran
2) Saudia Arabia
When you are second to the Taliban, rule by force and not by popular vote, you are the few nutz on the fringe.
My statements were not about all Muslims (if it sounded that way then I apologize).
It sure as hell did sound that way, how else would you interpret "the the sickness of Islam doesn't end there." If you really did not mean to talk about all muslims, why didn't you say something like, "the sickness of totalitarian theocracies doesn't end there?"
The Muslims of the middle east hate Christians, Jews, Hindus, basically anyone that is not Muslim.
Right there you are so far off the mark that it is ridiculous. How many middle-eastern muslims do you know? Sounds like the answer is zero. How much tv do you watch? Sounds like the answer is way too much. How much of it is foreign-sourced versus American-sourced? I'd wager close to zero.
You really need to take my comments about the KKK being representative of white Americans to heart, because that is EXACTLY the logical fallacy you are promoting with your ignorant, bombastic claims.
Oh and fuck you with your charges of being PC and "side-stepping" the issues of abuse of women in the middle east. If you knew shit about the topic you would know that these abuses stem as much from tribal beliefs that predate islam as they do from extremists within the religion, its just reactionaries that seek whatever cover they can find in islam to justify their own personal fucked up morality.
There is an arabic saying, much like Shakespeare's- "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," that "tribalists cover their actions with the cloak of islam." On the other hand, the reactionary response to problems like tribalism has been puritanical sects like salafism which can be just as easily do the same kinds of evil acts with a whole different bizarre intrepretation of islam. However, neither are mainstream islam, in the middle east or anywhere else.
A hindu website is hardly the place to go for an unbiased account of islam. There is no shortage of documents on the web that seek to portray any religion as heinous. I suggest you look for sources that at least try to be unbiased.
For example: zakat and jizya
Even so, at least you've been able to go from "islam adovocates violence against non muslims" to "islam inflicts taxation without representation." That's a lot of progress for an infidel to make in the time between two posts.
First, verse 30 is about Ezra and Jesus really doesn't apply - "may Allah destroy them" is not "you destroy them in the name of Allah." Other translations make this more clear by saying things like "Allah's curse be upon them" instead.
Verse 29 is about the jizyah which is essentially the non-muslim version of zakat - a roughly 10% tithe. The way it works is that zakat supports the operation of the islamic state, if you live in an islamic state, but you don't pay zakat because you aren't muslim, you still have to do your part to support the government because you are still provided the basic services of government regardless of your religion.
To say that verse 29 justifies violence against non-muslims is like saying that the 16th amendment justifies violence against all US citizens.
The goal is to continue to reduce the risk of a back-end data exposure.
Sure, today they promise that they only want to do biometrics on my face and fingers. But its just the tip of the slippery slope. You know we can't trust them. Just like the social security cards used to all say "not to be used for identification" and look what good that did.
I say that if we don't fight these biometric overlords, it is only a matter of time before they are forcing us to sit naked on copiers so they can xerox our asses! Make a stand now while you still have some dignity, and your pants!
the sickness of Islam doesn't end there
Its fuckers like you
who say shit like that
that really piss me off.
Those acts are no more about Islam than Pat Robertson calling for the assasination of Hugo Chaves is about Christianity and it doesn't stop there. Any mainstream religion will have plenty of nutz on the fringe who will do whatever evil they fucking want to and then blame it on their god. That doesn't, in any way, invalidate the religion, it just proves that evil will use whatever tool it can.
With over a billion muslims in the world, it is just plain stupid to judge them based on the actions of the most extreme fringes of their society. How would you feel if all white people in the world were treated as if the actions and beliefs of the KKK were their own actions and beliefs?
copyright law already gives the author of a work absolute and complete control of how it is used
This one statement is the basis of your entire argument. The problem with it is that it is dead wrong.
Copyright law gives you nothing. Enforcement of copyright is what gives you what, if any, control you have. The thing is, the times have changed. Enforcement was never easy, but now violating copyright has gone from being unrealistically dificult to the common and mundane. That makes enforcement practically impossible - while the ability to catch and punish violators has remained approximately constant, the number of violators has sky-rocketed.
The creative commons licenses are a practical admission of the current reality. If people are going to copy your shit no matter what you do, you might as well accept it, get over it and make the best of it. The CC licenses are just one approach to doing exactly that.
You can fight human nature, but in the long run, you will always lose.
It is not "streaming audio"... A Podcast is downloaded and saved to the subscriber's disk for playback at a later time.
Which makes it even stupider to give it a new name like podcasting.
It's the original evil sourge of the internet known as "file downloading" - the progenitor of "file sharing!"
And, of course, as the parent says, it is possible that the bot contains an exploitable flaw. The bot creator goes to sleep, someone on the net recognises the flaw and posts about it in a newsgroup, and by the time the bot creator awakes he is broke. I would not sleep soundly with a bot playing with my money.
I doubt that would happen. It's the online gambling equivalent of posting a misprice to fatwallet.com. Except that online merchants are big slow and stupid and most still haven't figured out how detect hordes of people taking advantage of a misprice. Most still aren't smart enough to page a human when there is an abnormal spike in the sales numbers for an item.
For a poker-bot, it is simple to prevent large scale exploitation of a flaw - give the bot a sanity check. If it loses more than $X, then it stops playing and pages a real human to check things out. There will probably be false positives due to the nature of gaussian distributions but experience ought to indicate what a good enough value for $X is to minimize those false positives and still make automated playing profitable.
And dont come with Mono we all know where it stands!
Hell, forget coming, I don't even want to kiss someone with mono!
> The average computer uses as much as two circus
> tents worth of coal to run on any given day.
Umm, any hard data (from an impartial site, please) for this?
I'm guessing you pulled this out of your ass.
He meant two flea circus tents.
Currently the amount of traffic flowing between nations is approximately one terabit per second. ...
Much of the growth over the last few years has come about because of the rise in the popularity of file-sharing that encourages people to swap and share large media files, said Mr Mauldin.
It's me. In the last five years, I've discovered foreign cinema way beyond what's domestically available. Fortunately my fellow humans in France, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Russia are just fine with breaking their laws to share their countries movies with me. So, I'm doing about a terabit per second of foreign movie downloads nowadays.
With all of the hollywood remakes and imports recently (Ring, Dark Water, The Departed, Shall we Dance, Hero, House of Flying Daggers, etc, etc) it really is nice to be able to see the original movies when they are first released in their own countries. Not to mention the stuff that is so beyond American sensabilities that it will never make it to the big screen over here (Oldboy, Audition, Visitor Q, etc).
Sure, I end up watching some crap, but when its free that's not a problem, and when I do find something extraordinarily good, it then makes it worthwhile to go order a real high-quality DVD from one of those websites that is mostly non-English and still be assured that I am getting good value for my money. And sometimes the movies actually do make it here with a domestic DVD release, something that was exceptionally rare back in the days of vhs before the net was widespread.
Where do you start? Especially when you concider that companies don't like investing in training, because it means they might have to pay you more (and if they don't you'll move companies).
Internships. I make more money than I would ever publically admit to and I blame it all on my college internship. You work for peanuts, or even free, but you gain all that useful on the job experience. Some do it part time and continue to take regular classes, some do it full time for a semester or two. Usually you can earn credits for the work too.
If you are smart and get in the right internship, you can shave 5+ years off your after-college-earning-curve. If you are lucky, you can find the right niche and really exploit it to the hilt.
the courts have determined that viewing something in plain sight in a public place is not an unreasonable search.
Viewing is a whole hell of a lot different from recording, archiving and cataloging.
a) The Vatican set aside, so what? Are governments the only ones who can be held accountable for terrorist actions?
b) Want to make a bet? PETA has certainly donated money to ELF, which the FBI considers a domestic terrorist group.
In either case, the US government is not encouraging business relationships with those groups, while they are just as gung-ho as ever to support domestic business relationships with the Saudis.
Are you telling me you know the intentions of leaders of foreign governments? I hope you work for the CIA, that clairvoyance will come in handy in preventing the next terrorist attack.
No clairvoyance required, the CIA can read public news articles and analysis just as well as I can.
the freedom to be invisible in a public place (such as the NYC subways) is long gone. In fact, it never existed in the first place.
You greatly exaggerate my point in order to build up a strawman. I never said a thing about "freedom to be invisible" but I will say that these networked cameras are an unreasonable search. When the bill of rights was drafted, no one could have even conceived of such tools backed by databases and networks in the hands of the state. Thus, while it may not be popular opinion with the courts, I feel confident in believing that the authors of the bill of rights would consider them a direct violation our right to be secure in our person from unreasonable searches.
You could make the same connections between PETA and ALF/ELF or the Catholic Church and the guys who bomb abortion clinics.
Hardly. Furthermore, in both or your examples they are a) not a government and b) not directly funding terrorist groups.
I find it ironic that you think surveillence cameras are an intolerable breach of our human rights, but that people should be considered guilty of a crime just because they have similar viewpoints of the actual perpetrators.
Again you grossly exaggerate my point so as give yourself a pathetic strawman to break down. Of the two of us, I'm pretty sure I am a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the common muslim man and woman.
The point, again, is that the Saudi government is directly supporting an extremist group that is directly connected to all of the major terrorist attacks in the west and most of them in the east too. In many cases, this support is intended to redirect the blame they desevere for their part in the state of the middle-east squarely onto the shoulders of the west.
In case you are interested in real history, bin Laden and the Saudi government are not on good terms. He is still pissed at them for choosing the Americans instead of him to protect them back in '91.
I'm pretty sure I know more about bin Laden and his association with the house of Saud than you do. Just because bin Laden has personal issues with the Saudi royal family doesn't mean that al queada is in any way adverse to using the money and the actions of the Saudis to further their goals of propaganda.
Well, now that we're a few years in, can you honestly say it has affected your life?
Absolutely. In many ways, and none for the better.
One small example - green lasers. There was a rash of reported laserings of airplane cockpits over the last year. Despite significant reasons to doubt many of the reports such as pilots obviously mistaking other natural phenomenon like st elmo's fire for a green laser as well as the physics of hitting and stabling tracking an airplane cockpit for any length of time.
The result? One guy in NJ gets arrested and detained under the patriot act for shining his laser into the sky at a helicopter and a mass crackdown on green laser sellers plus monitoring of forums like the lasers forum at candlepowerforum.com. Sure, the guy was a dumbass, but there was NO need to invoke the patriot act on him.
So, because I own and talk about legally using a high-powered green laser I am now listed in at least one government agency's files and am that much closer to being detained without access to a lawyer if I end up caught up in the wrong set of circumstances.
Meanwhile, the appropriate question you should have asked about the patriot act is - how has this constitution-trampling act benefited your life?
The answer is -- in no measurable way. There has not yet been a single actual terrorist caught and charged with the provisions of the patriot act. Instead its use has warped for all kinds of tasks which the party line said it would never be used for. Mr laser for example, drug enforcement, organized crime, etc. Stuff we already had plenty of laws on the books for.
I just refuse to believe that the politicians are sitting in a room rubbing their hands together with a devilish grin as they brainstorm as to how they're gonna fuck with the commoners.'
Again bogus analogies. It is far simpler than that, no conspiracy necessary. It is just a bunch of people who believe that they can do no wrong and thus wish to mandate that they be trusted to do no wrong. Good intentions all around. Except that these people willfully ignore the lessons of history that power corrupts. The more power they take for themselves the more corrupt the organizations will eventually become. Maybe not today (although I consider the reported mis-uses of the patriot act to already be clear corruption) and maybe not even tomorrow. But eventually, and more than likely SOON.
Corruption and abuse of power is a fundamental law of human nature applicable to any organization. It's why the constitution was a model of checks and balances. Tearing down those checks and balances can only increase the amount of corruption.
You can already be highly tracked the way it is if you're using a cell phone or even credit/debit cards. And it's not really any different
So if we can already be "highly tracked" like that, why do we need another way to be tracked? You apologists always make the argument that, "we've already lost our privacy so what's the point of fighting it?" But if that were true, the powers that want more power would not be pushing for these additional encroachments.
Should we ban "tourists taking pictures?"
Ease up on the tinfoil.
Ease up on the bogus analogies.
Your attempt to belittle my point does absolutely nothing to address the fact that networks of closed circuit tv cameras are a very high price for very little gain in actual safety.
Do you actually want to throw away your heritage for nothing? No? Then why the fuck are you supporting doing just that?
I work as a CCTV operator here in London, we do traffic enforcement, which is what most of the cameras are for. Everything we do is tightly regulated by the Human Rights Act (1988) and the Data Protection Act (1998) and a comprehensive Code of Practice. We have to respect privacy (or be sacked!)
d =4277344
That's all well and good. But what happens when those human rights laws are repealed, freeing you guys up to do the formerly forbidden in the name of the new law?
You say that won't happen? Think again.
Tony Blair is now going around saying that the first step (not a step, the first step) in fighting terrorism in the UK is to find a way around the Human Rights Act. Citation: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_i
If Blair has his way, your job is going to become exactly the kind of evil oppression that the tin hat brigade has been worried about.
At least in the US we still have a chance to keep the cameras from going in in the first place. Its too late for you guys.
If we had a two hundred million solution to all terrorist attacks, I would be pissed off that it hadn't already been implemented.
The price isn't just $200 million. The price is a significant chunk of our freedom. The value of that is immeasurably large.
What has happened to our "America, home of the free and land of the brave" that we should willingly throw away our freedom for such meaningless scraps of false security? We cower in terror at the mere thought of an attack that hasn't even happened once on our soil. Why are we so ready to give up our freedom for "protection" that is a) applicable to only one kind of attack and b) only useful after the fact?
So, when we really do see an attack of a different nature, how much more freedom would you have us give up in response? When we get to the point where we have no more freedom left at all, do you think that will be enough to protect the cowards among us?
And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.
Saudi Arabia is by large the primary source of Salafism, a branch of Sunni Islam that is just a hairsbreadth away from readily justifying terrrorist attacks. Almost all government officials (aka members of the house of Saud) are Salafi themselves. There is a direct connection between Salafiyyah as exported (with state dollars) by Saudi Arabia and islamic terrorism in the west.