Microsoft is quite obviously betting it will. In fact, they've been telling people that's the future that Microsoft will bring for years now. I went to a "Digital Home" show that was nothing more than Microsoft shilling their Digital Home products under a different name. That sounds rather underhanded of them.
Which "limp-wristed" responses are you referring to? The ones where the Republican congress and conservative media shouted "Wag the Dog!" over and over to force him to stop attempting to kill Bin Laden?
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job. As a non American, I think it's appalling that both the Republicans and the Democrats make these sorts of comments about foreign policy when they are out of office.
In the UK we have a tradition of bipartisanship over this sort of stuff - it's something which the opposition is briefed over and is normally exempt from political sniping, unlike domestic issues which are fair game. Like most UK stuff it's not official - the two halves of the establishment essentially have an agreement not to argue in public about things that seriously threaten them. It works pretty well in practice though - in WWII when the UK was in dire danger of invasion they agreed form a coalition government, suspend elections, lock up Nazi sympathizers, censor the press and have a planned economy. Once the war was won all this was reversed and elections were held, which Churchill lost. Arguably in the London bombings there was at least some hint of this - the shoot to kill policy by the police was bipartisan and when it killed the wrong person and was thus clearly untenable the decision to stop it was also bipartisan. But counter terrorism policy is still something which is handled by a sort of hypervisor composed of Labour and the Conservative front benches and the spooks rather than by the normal adversarial system where they each compete and criticise each other openly.
I'm a bit weary with our arrogance. It's worth noting that military power did not forever save any of the previous empires that fell apart. Actually game theory shows that the Roman Empire would have survived indefinitely if they could have increased the number of crucifixions per capita by 107,645.6% from the level around the time it collapsed.
They're resisting an occupation, it is not just their right, it is their DUTY to resist a foreign occupation. Don't like it? Just get the fuck out. Aah good! I was hoping to meet a Frenchman on Internets. How do you feel about your new President?
Any chance that Sony may have done that in the first place and that this guy is making an issue where there isn't one?
HAHAHAHAHA
Intellectual property laws don't apply to big corporations!, they only apply to the little guy.
I think it's more likely that a developer is an idiot and Sony's going to take a "wait until we get a letter from a lawyer" attitude.
Umm, bullshit. If you're a big corporation you're a much more tempting target for a lawsuit. I realise that the RIAA and FAST and so on have recently sued a few individuals, but most of the time people don't bother. Virtually every home machine I've used has a bunch of dubious software on it. But every company I've worked at goes to great lengths to stop illicit software being used because they're terrified of getting sued.
Let LANCOR explain to the Nigerian government and people how their greed and abuse of patent law is screwing up the education of Nigeria's children and putting them at a serious disadvantage to the country's neighbors. Yeah, I'm sure the Nigerian public will be outraged that someone powerful is making money in a way that ruins the country. Once they are aware of it, the media outcry will shame LANCOR into backing down.
It's good that you managed to write so much without using phrases like "Zionist occupational government", "Jews" or "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that might tip people off that you're a complete nutter.
feel free to go up to a WW2 veteran and accuse him of murder, overthrowing a democratically elected government, and supporting bloody coups. Whenever I make that point I always call it a democratically elected socialist government.
The Torah says that people who bear false witnesses should be stoned to death. I didn't see any mention of them having a right to privacy. Possibly people who violate the right to privacy should be stoned to death too of course, I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thing. Actually didn't read very much of it at all because it annoyed me intensely. I did read an article by Richard Dawkins who summarised it, the Quran and the Bible in fair and balanced way in a couple of thousand words.
Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals. More like big companies care for their users in the same way a farmer cares for his animals.
The problem is that in a real application a large portion of the data will be written and preserved, substantially reducing the number of free blocks. This isn't true. Flash translation layers are a mapping from logical to physical block numbers. Wear levelling tries to keep the erase counts on physical blocks as similar as possible. At the physical block level if blocks have low erase counts the data will be moved somewhere else and they will be used next. It doesn't matter if at the logical block number level big chunks of the disk never change, because you can store that data at any physical block.
Read the M Systems patents on wear levelling if you're interested in how to do this in detail.
Yes, wordpress is rather inefficient... How do php accelerators such as eaccelerator affect it, and what level of hardware would you need to handle a significant load of wordpress hits? You just change all the callocs in the wordpress code to mallocs. Cuts out all the overhead.
certainly arbitrary limits based on age are bullshit. limits based on actual skill (driver's license) are perfectly acceptable. How would that work instead of a fixed age of consent? Would you have Sex Licences tests for teenagers, analogous to Driving Licenses? I suppose like driving lessons they'd have dating lessons and once they have reached a certain level of proficiency the Sex Police would allow them to have sex. A few retards would never pass the test and the Sex Police would prevent them having sex ever, eugenics style. If you're out on a date and you forget your Sex License the Sex Police could arrest you, regardless of age. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you have in mind, but this honestly sounds like the worst idea I have ever heard.
but i see one. you are arguing that because the law is unjust only to "few", it is acceptable. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. QED;-)
also, if the police needs to be "sensible", the law is made of crap and fail. That's a very German thing to say. I guess you guys need the law to act as program and the police to act like automata. Which is great of course until some nutcase rewrites the law so that it's legal to kill (to pick a hypothetical example) Jews and the whole machine chews them up with great efficiency because everyone has been taught that their personal feelings have to be repressed for great justice. Even in the absence of a crazy government, codifying everything explicitly into law is a bad thing. It leads to a tyranny of people who self select as enforcers of countless petty laws, something I'm sure you've experienced if you lived in and outside Germany.
The UK isn't like that - the law doesn't define everything. People have the ability to decide cases based on individual merit. It's a much more human system. Mostly it comes down to juries, police and the crown prosecution service. At each point there is a human who looks at the case and decides whether an adult is exploiting a child and whether the law needs to get involved. And the law is persistently prosecuting the wrong people, the media will find out and parliament can change it.
you didn't provide an answer for why "old guys" shouldn't date 15 year olds. Yes I did. Read the slate article.
all of this because my sex-life is no bizness of the state or any one else as long as it's consentual. When the UK decriminalised homosexuality in the 1960's the key phrase was it was legal between "two consenting adults". You seem to be quite incapable of understanding the last word of it. Adults can have sex with whoever they want, children cannot because they are not mature enough to understand the consequences of them. If you were a parent you might be able to grasp this concept rather than trying to weasel your way out of it by mentioning that a small minority of the population might mature very early or very late. That's true, but it's also irrelevant. Abstinence for a year from sex is not going to do any long term damage to 15 year olds, but early sexual relationships certainly can - teen mothers don't tend to go back to school and will thus spend a lifetime in low paid dead end jobs or on welfare. Which is sadly very common in the UK. Abolishing the age of consent as you seem to be proposing would not improve this though, it would probably make things far worse. Perhaps better sex education would, but I suspect it's some deep societal issue.
And I'll say it again - read the damn slate article. He quotes studies that show that the vast majority of under 16 year olds are not intellectually mature enough to make decisions that can drastically affect their future. Making a few early developers wait a year or so before they can legally have sex doesn't undermine the argument for a fixed age of consent. Why do you have such an interest in it being legal to have sex with children by the way? Is some personal preference of yours getting in the way of your understanding the simple fact that this is not in their interest? If so, I'd avoid Thailand in future, they've started to arrest people like you, and Thai prisons are not nice places.
So the jist of your objection is that because there is variation between people we should have no limits?
Presumably there is some sort of normal distribution of the age people reach each milestone - i.e. most of them reach it in +- one standard deviation. The people my brother and I went to school with matured at a very similar pace - so the standard deviation should be much less than one year. And this is despite the fact we went to very different types of school because I passed an exam and he failed it. So you could set an age +1 standard deviation and it would be 'safe' in the sense that most people would be mature by the time they reached that age. Early developers would need to wait for a year to have a sexual relationship unless they wanted their partner to go to break the law but I don't see a problem with that. The age of consent is 16 in the UK anyway, and probably it is set conservatively in the sense that most 15 year olds are probably mature enough to have a relationship with someone of a similar age. On the other hand the police in the UK are probably sensible enough to not prosecute teenagers for having sex with each other. Old guys that date 15 year old girls would probably be prosecuted though - that's why the law is there.
And I don't think I'd want to date anyone under 25 either (I'm 36), so the limits in the article do seem plausible to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you mean to say that it's one of the *few* programs out there, or that it's one of only *a few* programs out there? Both.
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job. As a non American, I think it's appalling that both the Republicans and the Democrats make these sorts of comments about foreign policy when they are out of office.
In the UK we have a tradition of bipartisanship over this sort of stuff - it's something which the opposition is briefed over and is normally exempt from political sniping, unlike domestic issues which are fair game. Like most UK stuff it's not official - the two halves of the establishment essentially have an agreement not to argue in public about things that seriously threaten them. It works pretty well in practice though - in WWII when the UK was in dire danger of invasion they agreed form a coalition government, suspend elections, lock up Nazi sympathizers, censor the press and have a planned economy. Once the war was won all this was reversed and elections were held, which Churchill lost. Arguably in the London bombings there was at least some hint of this - the shoot to kill policy by the police was bipartisan and when it killed the wrong person and was thus clearly untenable the decision to stop it was also bipartisan. But counter terrorism policy is still something which is handled by a sort of hypervisor composed of Labour and the Conservative front benches and the spooks rather than by the normal adversarial system where they each compete and criticise each other openly.
Someone can add to the first goatse archive
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrneutron/73032460/in/pool-firstgoatse/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blixt/149797641/in/pool-firstgoatse/
You can't read articles on censorship through the RSS feed. It's one of those clever meta jokes by the editors.
He obviously worked in tech support before achiving divine status. That would certainly explain all the pain and suffering in the world.
Naah, fuck 'em.
Don't like it? Just get the fuck out. Aah good! I was hoping to meet a Frenchman on Internets. How do you feel about your new President?
You can't kill all the people all of the time, because then there's no one left to Respect you.
HAHAHAHAHA
Intellectual property laws don't apply to big corporations!, they only apply to the little guy.
I think it's more likely that a developer is an idiot and Sony's going to take a "wait until we get a letter from a lawyer" attitude.
Umm, bullshit. If you're a big corporation you're a much more tempting target for a lawsuit. I realise that the RIAA and FAST and so on have recently sued a few individuals, but most of the time people don't bother. Virtually every home machine I've used has a bunch of dubious software on it. But every company I've worked at goes to great lengths to stop illicit software being used because they're terrified of getting sued.The link was
http://www.google.com/search?xQ=Sony+GPL&q=slashdot&btnI
Yeah, xQ is ignored, q is a search string and btnI is the same as clicking "I'm feeling lucky", i.e. go to the first hit.
I hope not, I was looking forward to a good witchburning.
http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/articles/gen/corruptiondikehtm.html
It's good that you managed to write so much without using phrases like "Zionist occupational government", "Jews" or "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that might tip people off that you're a complete nutter.
The Torah says that people who bear false witnesses should be stoned to death. I didn't see any mention of them having a right to privacy. Possibly people who violate the right to privacy should be stoned to death too of course, I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thing. Actually didn't read very much of it at all because it annoyed me intensely. I did read an article by Richard Dawkins who summarised it, the Quran and the Bible in fair and balanced way in a couple of thousand words.
Read the M Systems patents on wear levelling if you're interested in how to do this in detail.
Most people prefer to call it the Linux\GPL since Linux has contributed so much to its popularity.
How do php accelerators such as eaccelerator affect it, and what level of hardware would you need to handle a significant load of wordpress hits? You just change all the callocs in the wordpress code to mallocs. Cuts out all the overhead.
The UK isn't like that - the law doesn't define everything. People have the ability to decide cases based on individual merit. It's a much more human system. Mostly it comes down to juries, police and the crown prosecution service. At each point there is a human who looks at the case and decides whether an adult is exploiting a child and whether the law needs to get involved. And the law is persistently prosecuting the wrong people, the media will find out and parliament can change it. you didn't provide an answer for why "old guys" shouldn't date 15 year olds. Yes I did. Read the slate article. all of this because my sex-life is no bizness of the state or any one else as long as it's consentual. When the UK decriminalised homosexuality in the 1960's the key phrase was it was legal between "two consenting adults". You seem to be quite incapable of understanding the last word of it. Adults can have sex with whoever they want, children cannot because they are not mature enough to understand the consequences of them. If you were a parent you might be able to grasp this concept rather than trying to weasel your way out of it by mentioning that a small minority of the population might mature very early or very late. That's true, but it's also irrelevant. Abstinence for a year from sex is not going to do any long term damage to 15 year olds, but early sexual relationships certainly can - teen mothers don't tend to go back to school and will thus spend a lifetime in low paid dead end jobs or on welfare. Which is sadly very common in the UK. Abolishing the age of consent as you seem to be proposing would not improve this though, it would probably make things far worse. Perhaps better sex education would, but I suspect it's some deep societal issue.
And I'll say it again - read the damn slate article. He quotes studies that show that the vast majority of under 16 year olds are not intellectually mature enough to make decisions that can drastically affect their future. Making a few early developers wait a year or so before they can legally have sex doesn't undermine the argument for a fixed age of consent. Why do you have such an interest in it being legal to have sex with children by the way? Is some personal preference of yours getting in the way of your understanding the simple fact that this is not in their interest? If so, I'd avoid Thailand in future, they've started to arrest people like you, and Thai prisons are not nice places.
So the jist of your objection is that because there is variation between people we should have no limits?
Presumably there is some sort of normal distribution of the age people reach each milestone - i.e. most of them reach it in +- one standard deviation. The people my brother and I went to school with matured at a very similar pace - so the standard deviation should be much less than one year. And this is despite the fact we went to very different types of school because I passed an exam and he failed it. So you could set an age +1 standard deviation and it would be 'safe' in the sense that most people would be mature by the time they reached that age. Early developers would need to wait for a year to have a sexual relationship unless they wanted their partner to go to break the law but I don't see a problem with that. The age of consent is 16 in the UK anyway, and probably it is set conservatively in the sense that most 15 year olds are probably mature enough to have a relationship with someone of a similar age. On the other hand the police in the UK are probably sensible enough to not prosecute teenagers for having sex with each other. Old guys that date 15 year old girls would probably be prosecuted though - that's why the law is there.
And I don't think I'd want to date anyone under 25 either (I'm 36), so the limits in the article do seem plausible to me.