Its never been the "authorities" job to protect the public; the public was always supposed to protect itself. Part of the reason I believe the 2nd amendment was added. When you give up your ability (and right) to protect yourself and give it to others, you're just asking for trouble. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Emphasis mine. I think you're reading what you want to read and not understanding the intentions of the amendment.
Parties are the problem, not the solution. We need no parties; we need politicians to think on their own about some issues for a change. Things like cohesive party-wide election strategies, "whips", thoughtless polarization on the issues by candidates, and thoughtless voting along party lines by voters have no place in a system originally designed to represent the interests of the people.
Problem is, candidates will always find a way to group themselves together. Whether or not it's called a party.
It's natural to want to be around like minded people. On top of that, it helps out marketing your ideals to the people. When you call yourself a Republican, you can tell people generally what you're about with one word. Which is essentially the problem you point out, which I agree with. I just don't think anything can be done about stopping this affiliation.
We're not a democracy, we are a republic, because a democracy is simply mob rule, whereas our system is supposed to protect the rights of minorities too.
Theoretical vulnerabilities mean nothing in the end, but the number of compromised computers is what counts.
Not when you're debating system security. You may as well run Windows 1.0 if you think being in a group so small that no cracker would waste their time on writing a worm for your system actually makes you secure.
Always that old security by obscurity mantra. Who cares WHY I don't get my Mac house burgled as often as my neighbors Windows house. Maybe my house doesn't have bars on the windows and bank safe doors and locks either. What is nice is that burglars bypass my house and go to the ones down the street. I also don't have to waste money on added security and guard services. The bottom line is that there are NO Mac botnets, whereas there are thousands if not millions of Windows machines in the service of criminals today.
Your analogy doesn't hold anything to your argument. You're not debating security, you're debating odds here. It's more like having a house so far from civilization that no burglar would waste his time driving all the way out to your house just for some of your crap.
Mac OSX has decent security. But please debate facts, not garbage like this.
As the article points out at the end, if you take that reasoning and assume that a black hole *does* exist then it could not have "formed" into existence... it simply had to be there to begin with (ie. there will never be more than there are now) OR come into existence in some other, likely un-observable, fashion than being "formed" (more may pop up at some point in time, but you'd never be able to watch its formation... one day it's not there, the next it is).
The problem with this is that we already know that black holes are forming. We've seen evidence of starts going nova and creating them. I believe we've even created mini-black holes in particle colliders which instantly dissipate.
Just as the fact that a zillion dipshits signing up to join the military in order to get the GI bill and pay for their college enabled our current, corrupt, unelected administration to wage war on a genocidal dictator who we created by training and supporting them, the zillion guns in the hands of the people in the US makes it possible for us to speak.
What? So you're saying the military is the citizens speaking out? Please tell me that you don't think the war in iraq is the protest of the american people.
It keeps the government nervous, which is what keeps them from doing anything they want.
This has no basis in reality. Since when has the modern US government ever cared about people? The only thing they currently care about is whether or not they'll be voted in at the next election.
I don't disagree with the 2nd ammendment, I disagree with these poor arguments for it. You did make one good point about government not sustaining a prolonged physical attack. As long as the revolt is lead by the majority, that is...
There's a reason why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people -- and it's not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.
Not that I'm disagreeing with the general theme of your post... but you also need to realize that one of the biggest reasons that current US government dwarfs the one we had 50-100 years ago is because our current population dwarfs what we had 50-100 years ago.
Except google drops a cookie on you while microsoft buries spyware into their OS.
I'm much more concerned about them pushing "CardSpace". Imagine if they succeed in getting it widely used and they then have control over authentication on the internet. It would be a powerful way to control what software people use to access the net.
Most annoying thing are the crashes of Firefox 2.x! I don't care if it eats a lot of memory (I've got 2GB - who wouldn't these days?) or is bloated, but I can't stand the crashes!
Startup firefox like so: `firefox -p`. Add a new profile, use that one instead. Profile corruption is usually the cause of firefox crashing. All you have to do is move things over you still want like your bookmarks and go from there. It's a good chance that this'll fix your problem.
A user of mine had this problem yesterday. 5 minutes on Mozilla's knowledgebase does wonders.
Incorrect. It is both a screening and to have your fingerprints on file. I went through this for an investment bank about a year ago; I was told they send them to the FBI to verify that I had no criminal record, and kept a copy on file for the SEC regulations, and was asked to sign a document acknowledging that they were doing this before they took the prints.
I stand corrected. I do remember the mention of the FBI at one point. It's been a long time since I got that done.
In "Soviet America" the Government probably very rarely DDoS'es Citibank to smitherines, now does it? Or takes down the website of the Venezuelan President? How likely is that?
Would we even know if we are engaged in cyber warfare right now?
And let's also add to this, they are doing a SCREENING.
This is not a screening. This is so they have your fingerprints on file. It's an SEC regulation and, if I remember correctly, the Broker/Dealer is who keeps it on file, not the government or police. I worked for a financial institution and had to get this done.
The purpose of this is to keep them on file in-case. This way they can check fingerprints on files, cash, etc if something happens. You get a card from the B/D, you take it to the local police station where you live, they fingerprint you(they're professionals), then take it back to work where they'll file it.
If you don't understand how a 3D virtual world can extend internal communications way beyond the limits of mail, IM, webpages, etc, then you have no insight.
Yet I don't see you trying to school us ignoramuses.
Fact is, it's not really that great of an idea. It's noting like real life where you have limitless expressions, can write on white boards in front of them, assemble models, etc. Now if they pack that into the 'metaverse' engine, then maybe it could be useful.
However, IM, Webpages, e-Mail, and phone, are superior for the majority of intraoffice communication. I need to have an answer to a question, I double click the person's name on Gaim and type my question. Two seconds later I have my answer. With a metaverse, I have to start up the program, login, try and find them somewhere in the place, then type my question anyway. And there's no way I'm going to run something so resource intensive while I'm not using it.
Some of my gripes you can get by with better design of the system. However, even if you got all that right, you still need to give the users better machines to handle the 3d graphics and on top of that, work at the same time. OR a separate computer.
Waste of money for something that probably would never increase productivity.
To be fair, some (like the one in my bathroom) have a 1/2 turn on time but then a very long (~1 minute) warm up time. It comes on bright enough (maybe like a 50W incandescent), but after being on for close to a minute it suddenly ramps over a few seconds up to probably 150% of its previous brightness, then stays there.
You know, this is actually preferable behavior for me. Odds are, when I'm turning on a light, it's either dusk or dead night. At dusk, you still have sufficient light from outside that full power isn't necessary. As for dead night, my eyes don't really want to get instantly slammed by a shart-ton of light.
To preface, I have no argument with your comments towards the article, just towards marketing.
Well, you're a marketer... I have no beef against you personally as I can see you aren't that bad in your practices, or so you think. However, I really do not like the whole aspect of marketing.
Marketing is subversive, do not deny that, it's true. You can put a pretty picture on using psycology in marketing all you want but the idea is to get into the heads of your potential customers. When you psycographically profile someone, you're essentially finding out what 'works' on them. This doesn't necissarilly mean you're fitting a product to it's demographic. You can, and most do, fit the demographic to the market by doing things like associating images and sounds that evoke emotion for that sort of group that you would like associated with the product.
Lets take a look at DaBeers. Not only has their campaign over the last 80 or so years changed the way people think about diamonds, it has worked the diamond into our culture.
Why? There's no need for diamond jewelry. There wasn't even a want for diamonds before they started their campaign. And it's not like people didn't know about diamonds and marketers were getting the word out. They changed people's perception of the product.
They did this by clever marketing using Bernay's techniques. Watch a diamond commercial and you will see the associations drawn between love, passion, glamor, happiness, and perception of wealth.
This goes way beyond 'good' and 'bad' products because that almost never comes into the equation with marketing.
The issue with going up against marketing is simple: a marketers job is to figure out what their marketing targets expect and need, and then communicate with those targets in a meaningful way.
This hasn't been true, for the most part, since the early 1900s. Yes, before TV and commercial radio.
A marketer's job is to make people want the product or service. They don't care what the consumer actually wants or needs. Their job is to manipulate people into wanting things they wouldn't normally want or need. Look around your home and look what you have. How much of that do you need? The whole marketing game changed back in the 20s with a man named Edward Bernays who adapted the psycology techniques of Sigmund Freud. He developed what they call 'Lifestyles' which categorize people into groups to target. He also started the whole 'linking a product to an emotion' deal.
I'd recommend checking out the BBC4 documentary called The Century of Self. Archive.org has it available for download.
I wish things were still like you believe, but sadly, they aren't.
No. OS/PD projects are copyrighted not patented. Whole different animal.
However, since US patent law provides for patenting software, wouldn't you be able to patent someone elses code 'ideas' overlapping the copyright?
I realize someone couldn't go and copy the code, because that's infringement, but it seems to me they could patent the way it's done or the end result.
I would like to know what's so seriously wrong with Paper ballots counted by people that we want to abandon them? People have
2000 Florida, USA is one example.
I would like to know why so many places are trying to move to more expensive, more complex, less secure means of voting when a better method already exists. I'm all for using computers where they have a place, such as things like filing taxes, but I fail to see the need for computers in voting.
You just answered your own question. It's exactly like taxes. It keeps you from having to go somewhere or mail something out to get (taxes/voting) done. This'll allow people to vote from work, take 5 minutes at breakfast to place their vote before leaving for work. All kinds of good reasons for the voters.
It doesn't speed up the counting process.
Oh yes it does. Tabulation takes seconds instead of days/weeks/months. You only have to do a hand count if it's challenged.
It doesn't make it any cheaper.
Yes it does. Computers are cheaper then people.
And it doesn't put any extra security into the system.
Now this is the #1 argument against electronic/internet voting. This is also the reason I'm still on the fence about the whole thing. There are many benefits but if all it accomplishes is to allow people to rig elections easier, then it's not worth it. Until they start paying more attention to the security aspect, I'm staying on the fence.
Well, if Internet speeds keep getting better (which I'm sure they will), this could be used to make a faster Wi-Fi router. It shouldn't be too difficult in a few years. Amirite?
First off, there's no such thing as a 'Wi-Fi router'. At least not in the technical sense. My guess is some marketing genius decided that was a good name for an AP/Router combo.
Anyway... this tech looks like it would be fairly poor as an omni-directional access point. While you can fit more data on a frequency that high, it's got a very short distance before attenuation, absorption, and interference sets in. You could ramp up the power to counteract that somewhat but the FCC hates that kind of thing. But even as they're describing meta-material filters, my guess is that this is more of a directional style transceiver. This would probably be best suited for use between campus buildings(WAN).
Slashdot Mirror
Emphasis mine. I think you're reading what you want to read and not understanding the intentions of the amendment.
It's natural to want to be around like minded people. On top of that, it helps out marketing your ideals to the people. When you call yourself a Republican, you can tell people generally what you're about with one word. Which is essentially the problem you point out, which I agree with. I just don't think anything can be done about stopping this affiliation.
Mac OSX has decent security. But please debate facts, not garbage like this.
I don't disagree with the 2nd ammendment, I disagree with these poor arguments for it. You did make one good point about government not sustaining a prolonged physical attack. As long as the revolt is lead by the majority, that is...
Best joke by moderation, ever.
A user of mine had this problem yesterday. 5 minutes on Mozilla's knowledgebase does wonders.
The purpose of this is to keep them on file in-case. This way they can check fingerprints on files, cash, etc if something happens. You get a card from the B/D, you take it to the local police station where you live, they fingerprint you(they're professionals), then take it back to work where they'll file it.
It's not that big of a deal.
Fact is, it's not really that great of an idea. It's noting like real life where you have limitless expressions, can write on white boards in front of them, assemble models, etc. Now if they pack that into the 'metaverse' engine, then maybe it could be useful.
However, IM, Webpages, e-Mail, and phone, are superior for the majority of intraoffice communication. I need to have an answer to a question, I double click the person's name on Gaim and type my question. Two seconds later I have my answer. With a metaverse, I have to start up the program, login, try and find them somewhere in the place, then type my question anyway. And there's no way I'm going to run something so resource intensive while I'm not using it.
Some of my gripes you can get by with better design of the system. However, even if you got all that right, you still need to give the users better machines to handle the 3d graphics and on top of that, work at the same time. OR a separate computer.
Waste of money for something that probably would never increase productivity.
This is by far the best argument against software patents I have ever seen.
To preface, I have no argument with your comments towards the article, just towards marketing.
Well, you're a marketer... I have no beef against you personally as I can see you aren't that bad in your practices, or so you think. However, I really do not like the whole aspect of marketing.
Marketing is subversive, do not deny that, it's true. You can put a pretty picture on using psycology in marketing all you want but the idea is to get into the heads of your potential customers. When you psycographically profile someone, you're essentially finding out what 'works' on them. This doesn't necissarilly mean you're fitting a product to it's demographic. You can, and most do, fit the demographic to the market by doing things like associating images and sounds that evoke emotion for that sort of group that you would like associated with the product.
Lets take a look at DaBeers. Not only has their campaign over the last 80 or so years changed the way people think about diamonds, it has worked the diamond into our culture.
Why? There's no need for diamond jewelry. There wasn't even a want for diamonds before they started their campaign. And it's not like people didn't know about diamonds and marketers were getting the word out. They changed people's perception of the product.
They did this by clever marketing using Bernay's techniques. Watch a diamond commercial and you will see the associations drawn between love, passion, glamor, happiness, and perception of wealth.
This goes way beyond 'good' and 'bad' products because that almost never comes into the equation with marketing.
A marketer's job is to make people want the product or service. They don't care what the consumer actually wants or needs. Their job is to manipulate people into wanting things they wouldn't normally want or need. Look around your home and look what you have. How much of that do you need? The whole marketing game changed back in the 20s with a man named Edward Bernays who adapted the psycology techniques of Sigmund Freud. He developed what they call 'Lifestyles' which categorize people into groups to target. He also started the whole 'linking a product to an emotion' deal.
I'd recommend checking out the BBC4 documentary called The Century of Self. Archive.org has it available for download.
I wish things were still like you believe, but sadly, they aren't.
I realize someone couldn't go and copy the code, because that's infringement, but it seems to me they could patent the way it's done or the end result.
Anyway... this tech looks like it would be fairly poor as an omni-directional access point. While you can fit more data on a frequency that high, it's got a very short distance before attenuation, absorption, and interference sets in. You could ramp up the power to counteract that somewhat but the FCC hates that kind of thing. But even as they're describing meta-material filters, my guess is that this is more of a directional style transceiver. This would probably be best suited for use between campus buildings(WAN).