That location was chosen because of the way radio waves reflected off the moon and a few other things. It is essentially a focal point if you want to listen in to Moscow.
How does that work, the moon not being geo-stationary and all?
But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.
+5 Informative for that bullshit? Come on. Prove it.
I guess it really doesn't take any facts for the idiots to start clamoring about how all business' are evil.
Dunno about that. But since most ISPs have a gross margin of 90% on their broadband traffic, they can under-report by 2x and still be vastly over-charging.
Well, the English channel's Awards list is significantly longer than the Arabic channel, and contains several prestigious awards for excellence in journalism. This, despite having a decade less time to have acquired them.
Oh come on. Its wikipedia - (a) neither list is comprehensive, (b) they aren't necessarily all that prestigious "youtube european partners" and "webby" awards, lol and (c) the awards there are mostly language-centric and there are a ton more english speakers looking to hand out awards - the middle east doesn't have much in the way of institutional recognition for good reporting.
I can't find the article now in the sea of others regarding the Current TV sale,
Too bad.
They also point out that both are generally better than any major American news broadcast, but given that even CNN has completely cut out their investigative news team in favor of silly holograms and touch screens, that's not a terribly high bar to reach.
CNN only cut that department this past summer, so that's hardly a fair disqualification given that whole extra decade you mentioned earlier.
Without any objective reporting on the issue to back it up, this criticism sounds a hell of a lot like someone trying to tar Al Jazeera with that complaint that arab rulers say one thing in english for the west and another thing in arabic for their local populations. I'm not saying they don't have assholes on talk shows, I'm saying that if assholes on talk shows is the best evidence for their poor quality of reporting, then it is weak sauce.
"Yet, countless times when I am told of the bribe, I know the very same thing could almost certainly have been accomplished without a bribe."
Without the context, that sounds like a very poor understanding of 3rd world bribery. There are basically two kinds of bribes -- bribes to get an official to do something illegal like skip a building inspection but sign the paperwork anyway, and bribes to get an official to simply do their job like show up to do that building inspection without waiting a year.
BOTH types of bribery are common enough in the third world, but the later is practically de rigueur because most government employees are not paid a living wage. It is almost like tipping a waiter.
Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).
On what evidence do you make this claim? Seriously, lets see analysis showing their English reporting is substantially better than their Arabic reporting. And I'm not talking about some talk show with an asshole on it, I'm talking news coverage.
How come the five largest ISPs in the country all deciding to implement the same tracking system and enforcing the same restrictions on millions of subscribers who have no other alternative to their services is not being investigated by the DOJ?
Because they are not competitors. Seriously. The vast majority of broadband customers have no more than 1 choice for high-speed service. Well, they could move to another town, but that's not really a choice in the way most people use the term.
Thus, since they aren't competing they can't be colluding.
If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?
Did you notice how all of them are also cable tv providers? It is in their interest to kill any other forms of entertainment distribution, legal or not, so that they can herd customers to their own products.
For a hint of where the market for spinning drives is going, look at DLP.
For anyone else going WTF do projectors and televisions have to do with storage, he's actually talking about DLT - Digital Linear Tape which is the marketing name of the Quantum tape product originally developed by DEC. The competing format is LTO (Linear Tape-Open) which basically killed DLT circa 2005. HP, IBM and eventually even Quantum (after acquiring Seagate's tape division) make LTO products.
That is just the price history of one model in one country. In the US, I scooped up eight 3TB external drives off the shelf of Target after the price-gouging started because Target was slow to catch up with the online gougers. They were $99 each. Yes, $99 for a 3TB external drive at a regular brick and mortar department store,, not on sale. The 2TB drives were $79.
If I act like a stereotype, should I be upset when people treat me like a stereotype? But certain cultures eschew normalization in favor of maintaining stereo types, because it is a defining feature.
That argument boils down to "give your children white sounding names if you don't want them to be discriminated against." Lots of people tried paying that price, didn't really fix the problem though.
That would probably be true in a competitive market.
But right now the market for hard disks is between two giants (Western Digital and Seagate) and one tiny little division of Toshiba that doesn't make much if any 3.5" models. I think we are much more likely to see oligopoly-style non-competition and thus price stability if not outright increases.
Maybe my employer and yours should split their business across multiple banks such that no one failure can bring the whole thing crashing down.
Brokerage houses like etrade do this for their clients - any cash in your investment account gets deposited across something like 20 banks in your name all behind the scenes. It is like buckets that spill-over into the next bucket in the chain - once you hit the FDIC limit on the first bank, the brokerage automagically opens an account with the second bank and puts any more cash into that account until you hit the FDIC limit there, repeat until you run out of banks.
It's called evolution. Those that can and need to live on evolve. Those that can't die off. Just like life.
Except we aren't talking about genetics here. What happens is that all the dummies get canned, society suffers and eventually recovers. A generation or two passes and pretty soon enough people with the reins of power have forgotten what happened last time and end up repeating history.
I'm not saying I have an answer, I'm just saying your analogy is a poor one.
We've got about zero chance of changing facebook policies. Nearly zero chance of legislatively stopping it either (and then there will be plenty of exceptions for "law enforcement" that will just make it so that only the very powerful can abuse these tools).
But what you can do is to pollute their database. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Tag people with the wrong names. Each photo of the same person, tag it with a different name. Or, if you have a lot of photos, use the same (wrong) name a couple of times, before switching it up. That makes it so they can't just throw out all the one-offs. You can also go the other way - upload photos of strangers and tag them with the names of your friends (and yourself).
It ain't perfect, nothing ever is. But facial recognition ain't perfect either, if we can put enough noise into their database, it will make it impractical. At least impractical to be used against you and your friends. Unfortunately, those who blithely use it without concern are just going to have to live with the consequences. For those people, its the online equivalent of giving a gun to a toddler. But until some people actually die as a result, no way facebook will ever be held accountable for such reckless disregard for the welfare of their users.
PS - I am NOT looking forward to "google glasses" becoming ubiquitous and building facial recog databases of everybody in view of the wearers. Even if google doesn't know your name, they do know location, time and the faces of everybody near you. Enough of that sort of data and they can narrow down your identify pretty well.
That YOU can't search for some unknown face, doesn't mean some privileged few (perhaps with warrant in hand) can't search.
This fact is important. This "opting out" on facebook is just like all the other web tracking "opt outs" - you don't opt out of being tracked and cataloged, you opt out of being reminded that you are being tracked and cataloged.
You are going to have to follow up because that does not prove what the AC has been claiming. All it says is that the "jurisdiction" is enough to take down the website aka confiscate the domain name by having verisign hand it over. That part is not under dispute - they've done that a whole bunch of times, but they haven't even tried to do anything more than that.
You can say this until you're blue in the face, but if the US Government says otherwise, you're--as we say back in the old country--up shit creek without a paddle.
How's about you paint my face blue with a citation?
Slashdot Mirror
That location was chosen because of the way radio waves reflected off the moon and a few other things. It is essentially a focal point if you want to listen in to Moscow.
How does that work, the moon not being geo-stationary and all?
Easy to find, at the moment on youtube but I do notice that copies of it are starting to disappear.
An anonymous source who only talks to a discredit internet crank. It is hard to imagine weaker evidence.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp
But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.
+5 Informative for that bullshit? Come on. Prove it.
"it's just zeroes and ones"
If that's all it is, then why is he so concerned about these zeros and ones that he was convinced to submit this bill in the first place?
George jr. is not heard or seen much in the media since he left office, he's figured out how most of us do not like him, if some of us ever did.
George Sr was pretty low profile too. He's had a couple of moments in the spotlight, but there's been 16 more years to spread them out over.
Gross profits also doesn't include the losses from other parts of the company. Those aren't relevant when talking about bandwidth caps.
I guess it really doesn't take any facts for the idiots to start clamoring about how all business' are evil.
Dunno about that. But since most ISPs have a gross margin of 90% on their broadband traffic, they can under-report by 2x and still be vastly over-charging.
Well, the English channel's Awards list is significantly longer than the Arabic channel, and contains several prestigious awards for excellence in journalism. This, despite having a decade less time to have acquired them.
Oh come on. Its wikipedia - (a) neither list is comprehensive, (b) they aren't necessarily all that prestigious "youtube european partners" and "webby" awards, lol and (c) the awards there are mostly language-centric and there are a ton more english speakers looking to hand out awards - the middle east doesn't have much in the way of institutional recognition for good reporting.
I can't find the article now in the sea of others regarding the Current TV sale,
Too bad.
They also point out that both are generally better than any major American news broadcast, but given that even CNN has completely cut out their investigative news team in favor of silly holograms and touch screens, that's not a terribly high bar to reach.
CNN only cut that department this past summer, so that's hardly a fair disqualification given that whole extra decade you mentioned earlier.
Without any objective reporting on the issue to back it up, this criticism sounds a hell of a lot like someone trying to tar Al Jazeera with that complaint that arab rulers say one thing in english for the west and another thing in arabic for their local populations. I'm not saying they don't have assholes on talk shows, I'm saying that if assholes on talk shows is the best evidence for their poor quality of reporting, then it is weak sauce.
"Yet, countless times when I am told of the bribe, I know the very same thing could almost certainly have been accomplished without a bribe."
Without the context, that sounds like a very poor understanding of 3rd world bribery. There are basically two kinds of bribes -- bribes to get an official to do something illegal like skip a building inspection but sign the paperwork anyway, and bribes to get an official to simply do their job like show up to do that building inspection without waiting a year.
BOTH types of bribery are common enough in the third world, but the later is practically de rigueur because most government employees are not paid a living wage. It is almost like tipping a waiter.
Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).
On what evidence do you make this claim? Seriously, lets see analysis showing their English reporting is substantially better than their Arabic reporting. And I'm not talking about some talk show with an asshole on it, I'm talking news coverage.
How come the five largest ISPs in the country all deciding to implement the same tracking system and enforcing the same restrictions on millions of subscribers who have no other alternative to their services is not being investigated by the DOJ?
Because they are not competitors. Seriously. The vast majority of broadband customers have no more than 1 choice for high-speed service. Well, they could move to another town, but that's not really a choice in the way most people use the term.
Thus, since they aren't competing they can't be colluding.
As for why they aren't competing in the first place? Well, the DoJ has already given them a free pass on that bit of collusion.
If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?
Did you notice how all of them are also cable tv providers? It is in their interest to kill any other forms of entertainment distribution, legal or not, so that they can herd customers to their own products.
This is how the utterly stupid reclassification of ISPs as information services (from their previous classification as telecommunications services) has become self-fullfilling.
It was just an email - just dismiss it as spam and wait for a more formal request.
Now that he's posted it on slashdot, it is a little too late for that.
For a hint of where the market for spinning drives is going, look at DLP.
For anyone else going WTF do projectors and televisions have to do with storage, he's actually talking about DLT - Digital Linear Tape which is the marketing name of the Quantum tape product originally developed by DEC. The competing format is LTO (Linear Tape-Open) which basically killed DLT circa 2005. HP, IBM and eventually even Quantum (after acquiring Seagate's tape division) make LTO products.
That is just the price history of one model in one country. In the US, I scooped up eight 3TB external drives off the shelf of Target after the price-gouging started because Target was slow to catch up with the online gougers. They were $99 each. Yes, $99 for a 3TB external drive at a regular brick and mortar department store,, not on sale. The 2TB drives were $79.
If I act like a stereotype, should I be upset when people treat me like a stereotype? But certain cultures eschew normalization in favor of maintaining stereo types, because it is a defining feature.
That argument boils down to "give your children white sounding names if you don't want them to be discriminated against." Lots of people tried paying that price, didn't really fix the problem though.
That means prices will go down, right?
That would probably be true in a competitive market.
But right now the market for hard disks is between two giants (Western Digital and Seagate) and one tiny little division of Toshiba that doesn't make much if any 3.5" models. I think we are much more likely to see oligopoly-style non-competition and thus price stability if not outright increases.
Maybe my employer and yours should split their business across multiple banks such that no one failure can bring the whole thing crashing down.
Brokerage houses like etrade do this for their clients - any cash in your investment account gets deposited across something like 20 banks in your name all behind the scenes. It is like buckets that spill-over into the next bucket in the chain - once you hit the FDIC limit on the first bank, the brokerage automagically opens an account with the second bank and puts any more cash into that account until you hit the FDIC limit there, repeat until you run out of banks.
It's called evolution. Those that can and need to live on evolve. Those that can't die off. Just like life.
Except we aren't talking about genetics here. What happens is that all the dummies get canned, society suffers and eventually recovers. A generation or two passes and pretty soon enough people with the reins of power have forgotten what happened last time and end up repeating history.
I'm not saying I have an answer, I'm just saying your analogy is a poor one.
Owning a copy of it is quite different than owning the copyright on it.
It is an inbetween state. The plagarism guys claim to own more than a single copy, but they don't claim unlimited unlimited rights to redistribute.
We've got about zero chance of changing facebook policies. Nearly zero chance of legislatively stopping it either (and then there will be plenty of exceptions for "law enforcement" that will just make it so that only the very powerful can abuse these tools).
But what you can do is to pollute their database. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Tag people with the wrong names. Each photo of the same person, tag it with a different name. Or, if you have a lot of photos, use the same (wrong) name a couple of times, before switching it up. That makes it so they can't just throw out all the one-offs. You can also go the other way - upload photos of strangers and tag them with the names of your friends (and yourself).
It ain't perfect, nothing ever is. But facial recognition ain't perfect either, if we can put enough noise into their database, it will make it impractical. At least impractical to be used against you and your friends. Unfortunately, those who blithely use it without concern are just going to have to live with the consequences. For those people, its the online equivalent of giving a gun to a toddler. But until some people actually die as a result, no way facebook will ever be held accountable for such reckless disregard for the welfare of their users.
PS - I am NOT looking forward to "google glasses" becoming ubiquitous and building facial recog databases of everybody in view of the wearers. Even if google doesn't know your name, they do know location, time and the faces of everybody near you. Enough of that sort of data and they can narrow down your identify pretty well.
Pandora pays at least 2 cents per listener hour. That's the minimum. The maximum is 25% of revenue generated during that playback. So the artist should be getting paid whichever is larger.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/does-the-riaa-even-want-pandoras-golden-eggs/
$1,653 equals 82,650 hours.
82,650 hours over 1.5M listens means average length of song is 3.3 minutes.
So, if her average piece is longer than 3.3 minutes, she's getting ripped off.
Otherwise something fishy is going on. Is BMG taking a big cut?
It seems to me that 25% of revenue is way more than fair for what is essentially radio play.
That YOU can't search for some unknown face, doesn't mean some privileged few (perhaps with warrant in hand) can't search.
This fact is important. This "opting out" on facebook is just like all the other web tracking "opt outs" - you don't opt out of being tracked and cataloged, you opt out of being reminded that you are being tracked and cataloged.
You are going to have to follow up because that does not prove what the AC has been claiming. All it says is that the "jurisdiction" is enough to take down the website aka confiscate the domain name by having verisign hand it over. That part is not under dispute - they've done that a whole bunch of times, but they haven't even tried to do anything more than that.
You can say this until you're blue in the face, but if the US Government says otherwise, you're--as we say back in the old country--up shit creek without a paddle.
How's about you paint my face blue with a citation?