Well, no, it is about the innocent lives and the invasion.
I am a perfectly orderly law-abiding citizen.
However, should my country (Latvia) be invaded by another (doesn't matter which, but, for example, the neighbouring Russia), then I can easily see myself using my savings to buy a gun in the black market and try to murder the official figureheads that the invaders set up (as it is happening now in Iraq). And, if that seems to go nowhere, and my people are suffering, then in desperation trying to go to Moscow and blow up something there to cause as much harm as I can. In a completely futile, completely useless evil act of blind revenge.
Attack on a nation does that to people. To ordinary, peaceful people.
Okay, if we are dealing with the organising ones, not suiciders, then yes, a lot of them aren't really oppressed themselves. But in recruiting middle and upper class students-anarchists to become terrorists, the mental image of oppression they see, of the group they are 'fighting for' is very important. This is where current situation in Iraq also is helping terrorists - these guys hear and see things that make them want to DO something NOW.
But the armed gangs in Iraq are a great training ground for potential recruits. Getting a guy who has fought for his family with Kalashnikov in hand against 'infidels' to do some 'wet' work is much easier than a normal person.
Find the terrorists - nowadays investigators are very capable. Punish the terrorists as any other maniacal murderers.
Don't attempt to kill the terrorists by bombing the village where they grew up - that will get you nowhere.
Winning against terrorism means not caring about it on a political relationship level - it means dealing with murderous crime. The terrorism deaths are insignificant when compared to car accidents or smoking-caused deaths - so spend the majority of funds there, not try to finance a huge war-machine that anyway doesn't achieve safety for your civilians.
Be patient, and don't go into a berserk mode, making rash decisions in anger that only hurt you in the long term.
Treat them as any other crazed maniac mass-murderer. Treat them as a sect of mass-murderers (See Tokyo poison-gas attacks). Find and imprison the guilty ones.
Don't try to punish the innocent people that once lived in the same city as the murderers. Don't try to punish ethnic or religious groups. If some groups hate you, avoid creating situations when they have nothing to lose.
Right now in Iraq there are muslim radical fighting organisatiations, well armed, able to easily recruit angry, desparate people, and getting experience in armed conflicts.
This is a terrorist breeding ground.
Before the occupation, Husein would harshly eliminate any such groups, because they would threaten his power. Right now the Iraqi state is teethless and cannot stop even 3-person gangs of robber thugs.
I have seen no valid argument that the USA invasion of Iraq has made the horrible murders (such as this London case) less likely to happen. Instead it seems to be the other way around.
The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.
Simply 'pressing more' doesn't achieve your goals of safety, it works against it.
The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....
But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.
The article and the databases there are about the personal information of Russian residents (well, including Americans who live there), not some outsourcing mishap.
You cannot not give your financial information to government tax authorities - if their databases get sold, as it is happening in Russia, it's not like you can choose an 'alternate provider'
The things you can buy in Moscow market are the real thing - Russian IRS database, with the income information as accurate as the authorites have it, the living addresses are the ones that the police use, etc.
If it says 'Tax returns 2003', then it really is the tax returns, as they were for 2003, complete with the ability to easily search for, say, addresses and family relationships of persons in your neighbourhood with more than 100,000$ income last year.
Re:Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding
on
Internet Movies Before DVD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am downloading software and movies I don't intend to use in the coming 6 months, but I will likely be interested in it later - because if these P2P crackdowns actually succeed, then it won't be available anymore - so I'd rather have them stored in my pile of CD's where nothing can take them away anymore.
If you are talking about a timescale that includes millions of generations (think how fast insect generations can change, within a few days for some of them) and population counts in uncountable billions (again, think about insects) then yes, a 1 in 1,000,000,000 mutation that grants a 0.01% larger chance to reproduce - such a mutation will get 'accepted' by 99% of the population within a few hundred years - an insignificantly small time, compared to the timescale of the evolution.
Do some simulations to try out the numbers, if you don't believe it, any coder can do it over a course of one evening.
Regarding the 'sudden changes' - these are the ones that drive the evolution. If the local circumstances change unfavourably, killing 99% of the population - then the 1% that survive will likely be genetically different, and they will form a new population. Any local 'mishaps' (scarcity of food, large fire, flood, drying of the only lake, etc) will accelerate evolution greatly in that small population, and that partly isolated, genetically different population will then diverge from the previous species.
It's not like you can't pay a huge amount of money and get an army of outside Linux consultants and come and do things for you if something goes wrong.
You can get the same service for the same amount of money if you want to - with Linux you actually get a choice, though, instead of having to pay the huge amount of money even if the Big Iron support somehow proves nearly useless to you.
It's not an asset. It's not property. His family gets the money earned from the works. If the due time (14+14 years, as originally was) has not expired, the family continues to get that income.
I am saying that using 'artistic control', and 'creative control', 'artists moral right to define how derivative works should be created' as arguments for copyright is simply illogical if the author is not anymore.
I am saying that using 'artists need to eat, too, if we want to benefit from their creativity' is valid for the 14+14 year copyright, but that argument is void when even the author's children are dead of old age.
I am saying that using 'artists need incentive to create future works' is valid for the 14+14 year copyright, but that argument is completely baseless when speaking about copyright where the artist is already dead.
Do you think that the relatives of Shakespeare should be allowed to control his works ?
We are speaking about classical works where the author is long dead. Works from 1920'ies, where people cannot create derivatives without fear of being sued. This is stifling innovation.
How about Mickey Mouse ? It should belong to the public now; Walt Disney and his inheritors has already reaped the benefits, but now this popular culture icon is not still available to the public. Walt Disney won't create any more, since he is dead, and other young talented artists, some of whom might have the passion to create new Mickey Mouse drawings - they are prohibited from doing so.
Should our history of culture belong to a few families ? Why shouldn't Disney's creations be treated the same as Shakespeare's ? The public should have the same rights.
Restricting distribution of works created a century ago where the authors are long dead won't help the author any way, and won't encourage him to create other beautiful works either (well, unless they manage to ressurrect him).
Copyright at 14 years would allow for ample opportunities for all artists and authors to get paid for their work, as most of commercial use of the work happens within those 14 years anyway. AND, it allows for other, new authors to create new creative derivative works without huge legal problems; it solves abandonware; it solves orphanware (allowing to reproduce an obscure song cannot get the author's permission because he is dead, but resolving the legal issues of ownership would cost countless thousands).
Well, that's the point - France owns.fr, but it's not a ROOT server.
ROOT severs are the '.' servers, which manage where the.com,.fr,.gov,.uk,.org,.ru main DNS servers are located.
I see no good reason why the 13 root servers shouldn't be owned by different organisations, one of them by France, one by US, one by China, etc - because currently US Government can pull the plug on the DNS system if they wish so. You can't find something.gov.fr without going through the root servers.
Computers can do shades of gray better than physical neurons can. While there are an infinate number of numbers that cannot be described by floating points, any energies transfered between neutrons, any neutron states are physical phenomena that are quantised (discrete, and fully describable by fixed-point numbers of finite, limited length), and so they can be perfectly described by digital machines.
Quantum theory has shown that both time and space are quantified. In the real world, if a line is drawn, there are two points where there can be nothing between them; In the real world, there are two instants of time where there can be nothing between them. The steps are really small, but nowadays they are measurable.
Real numbers (R) are a philosophical and mathematical tool, but real world really is discrete, any real world analog values are not really continuous in the mathematical sense, but just with very small discretisation steps - and these steps are set by the reality itself.
If you have a good site with valuable information, then, over time, news of it will get around, and you will keep getting new links over time.
However, if you have gotten 1000 links at once, and for the next months noone else is linking to you - then you have probably bought the initial links, but nobody real considers the content worthy of attention.
I am a musician. Why shouldn't I be able to perform classic Blues works created by masters who are long dead now, unless a record company permits me to do it ?
Music is based on other music. Why shouldn't other musicians be free to make 'cover' versions of Beatles creations in 2016 ? The copyright has locked away many simple melodies that cannot be used in other songs now - this is referring to ideas. Many styles of music (Jazz, for example) is based around creative improvisation around a known song - and copyright prevents many melodies and songs to be used in this way, unless you are doing it in a private place - even jamming in a semi-empty bar counts as 'public performance'.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, it is about the innocent lives and the invasion.
I am a perfectly orderly law-abiding citizen.
However, should my country (Latvia) be invaded by another (doesn't matter which, but, for example, the neighbouring Russia), then I can easily see myself using my savings to buy a gun in the black market and try to murder the official figureheads that the invaders set up (as it is happening now in Iraq). And, if that seems to go nowhere, and my people are suffering, then in desperation trying to go to Moscow and blow up something there to cause as much harm as I can. In a completely futile, completely useless evil act of blind revenge.
Attack on a nation does that to people. To ordinary, peaceful people.
Okay, if we are dealing with the organising ones, not suiciders, then yes, a lot of them aren't really oppressed themselves. But in recruiting middle and upper class students-anarchists to become terrorists, the mental image of oppression they see, of the group they are 'fighting for' is very important. This is where current situation in Iraq also is helping terrorists - these guys hear and see things that make them want to DO something NOW.
But the armed gangs in Iraq are a great training ground for potential recruits. Getting a guy who has fought for his family with Kalashnikov in hand against 'infidels' to do some 'wet' work is much easier than a normal person.
Find the terrorists - nowadays investigators are very capable.
Punish the terrorists as any other maniacal murderers.
Don't attempt to kill the terrorists by bombing the village where they grew up - that will get you nowhere.
Winning against terrorism means not caring about it on a political relationship level - it means dealing with murderous crime.
The terrorism deaths are insignificant when compared to car accidents or smoking-caused deaths - so spend the majority of funds there, not try to finance a huge war-machine that anyway doesn't achieve safety for your civilians.
Be patient, and don't go into a berserk mode, making rash decisions in anger that only hurt you in the long term.
Treat them as any other crazed maniac mass-murderer.
Treat them as a sect of mass-murderers (See Tokyo poison-gas attacks).
Find and imprison the guilty ones.
Don't try to punish the innocent people that once lived in the same city as the murderers.
Don't try to punish ethnic or religious groups.
If some groups hate you, avoid creating situations when they have nothing to lose.
Fight whom ?
Can you defeat one (very small, but very active and visible) group of people by fighting a mostly unrelated huge group ?
(There are 1.3 billion muslims, for example - more than the population of Europe+USA combined.)
Everyone of who exactly ?
Do you know who is responsible ?
If so, are you sure that you are right ?
Right now in Iraq there are muslim radical fighting organisatiations, well armed, able to easily recruit angry, desparate people, and getting experience in armed conflicts.
This is a terrorist breeding ground.
Before the occupation, Husein would harshly eliminate any such groups, because they would threaten his power. Right now the Iraqi state is teethless and cannot stop even 3-person gangs of robber thugs.
I have seen no valid argument that the USA invasion of Iraq has made the horrible murders (such as this London case) less likely to happen. Instead it seems to be the other way around.
Would that protect you and your family and your neighbours against possible future terrorist attacks, or just facilitate more of them ?
In stock markets, 5% during an hour is an awfully large amount, not 'hardly a blip'.
The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.
Simply 'pressing more' doesn't achieve your goals of safety, it works against it.
The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....
But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.
The article and the databases there are about the personal information of Russian residents (well, including Americans who live there), not some outsourcing mishap.
You cannot not give your financial information to government tax authorities - if their databases get sold, as it is happening in Russia, it's not like you can choose an 'alternate provider'
The things you can buy in Moscow market are the real thing - Russian IRS database, with the income information as accurate as the authorites have it, the living addresses are the ones that the police use, etc.
If it says 'Tax returns 2003', then it really is the tax returns, as they were for 2003, complete with the ability to easily search for, say, addresses and family relationships of persons in your neighbourhood with more than 100,000$ income last year.
I am downloading software and movies I don't intend to use in the coming 6 months, but I will likely be interested in it later - because if these P2P crackdowns actually succeed, then it won't be available anymore - so I'd rather have them stored in my pile of CD's where nothing can take them away anymore.
If you are talking about a timescale that includes millions of generations (think how fast insect generations can change, within a few days for some of them) and population counts in uncountable billions (again, think about insects) then yes, a 1 in 1,000,000,000 mutation that grants a 0.01% larger chance to reproduce - such a mutation will get 'accepted' by 99% of the population within a few hundred years - an insignificantly small time, compared to the timescale of the evolution.
Do some simulations to try out the numbers, if you don't believe it, any coder can do it over a course of one evening.
Regarding the 'sudden changes' - these are the ones that drive the evolution. If the local circumstances change unfavourably, killing 99% of the population - then the 1% that survive will likely be genetically different, and they will form a new population. Any local 'mishaps' (scarcity of food, large fire, flood, drying of the only lake, etc) will accelerate evolution greatly in that small population, and that partly isolated, genetically different population will then diverge from the previous species.
It's not like you can't pay a huge amount of money and get an army of outside Linux consultants and come and do things for you if something goes wrong.
You can get the same service for the same amount of money if you want to - with Linux you actually get a choice, though, instead of having to pay the huge amount of money even if the Big Iron support somehow proves nearly useless to you.
It's not an asset. It's not property.
His family gets the money earned from the works.
If the due time (14+14 years, as originally was) has not expired, the family continues to get that income.
I am saying that using 'artistic control', and 'creative control', 'artists moral right to define how derivative works should be created' as arguments for copyright is simply illogical if the author is not anymore.
I am saying that using 'artists need to eat, too, if we want to benefit from their creativity' is valid for the 14+14 year copyright, but that argument is void when even the author's children are dead of old age.
I am saying that using 'artists need incentive to create future works' is valid for the 14+14 year copyright, but that argument is completely baseless when speaking about copyright where the artist is already dead.
Do you think that the relatives of Shakespeare should be allowed to control his works ?
We are speaking about classical works where the author is long dead. Works from 1920'ies, where people cannot create derivatives without fear of being sued. This is stifling innovation.
How about Mickey Mouse ? It should belong to the public now; Walt Disney and his inheritors has already reaped the benefits, but now this popular culture icon is not still available to the public. Walt Disney won't create any more, since he is dead, and other young talented artists, some of whom might have the passion to create new Mickey Mouse drawings - they are prohibited from doing so.
Should our history of culture belong to a few families ? Why shouldn't Disney's creations be treated the same as Shakespeare's ? The public should have the same rights.
Restricting distribution of works created a century ago where the authors are long dead won't help the author any way, and won't encourage him to create other beautiful works either (well, unless they manage to ressurrect him).
Copyright at 14 years would allow for ample opportunities for all artists and authors to get paid for their work, as most of commercial use of the work happens within those 14 years anyway. AND, it allows for other, new authors to create new creative derivative works without huge legal problems; it solves abandonware; it solves orphanware (allowing to reproduce an obscure song cannot get the author's permission because he is dead, but resolving the legal issues of ownership would cost countless thousands).
Well, that's the point - France owns .fr, but it's not a ROOT server.
.com, .fr, .gov, .uk, .org, .ru main DNS servers are located.
ROOT severs are the '.' servers, which manage where the
I see no good reason why the 13 root servers shouldn't be owned by different organisations, one of them by France, one by US, one by China, etc - because currently US Government can pull the plug on the DNS system if they wish so. You can't find something.gov.fr without going through the root servers.
What physical, changing measure of a neuron can represent PI ? It's any possible energy levels are just as discrete as x-bit numbers are.
Computers can do shades of gray better than physical neurons can. While there are an infinate number of numbers that cannot be described by floating points, any energies transfered between neutrons, any neutron states are physical phenomena that are quantised (discrete, and fully describable by fixed-point numbers of finite, limited length), and so they can be perfectly described by digital machines.
Quantum theory has shown that both time and space are quantified. In the real world, if a line is drawn, there are two points where there can be nothing between them; In the real world, there are two instants of time where there can be nothing between them. The steps are really small, but nowadays they are measurable.
Real numbers (R) are a philosophical and mathematical tool, but real world really is discrete, any real world analog values are not really continuous in the mathematical sense, but just with very small discretisation steps - and these steps are set by the reality itself.
If you have a good site with valuable information, then, over time, news of it will get around, and you will keep getting new links over time.
However, if you have gotten 1000 links at once, and for the next months noone else is linking to you - then you have probably bought the initial links, but nobody real considers the content worthy of attention.
As said in all the articles, there is a testable prediction - regarding IQ tests and the person having (or not having) a copy of the mentioned genes.
I am a musician. Why shouldn't I be able to perform classic Blues works created by masters who are long dead now, unless a record company permits me to do it ?
Music is based on other music. Why shouldn't other musicians be free to make 'cover' versions of Beatles creations in 2016 ? The copyright has locked away many simple melodies that cannot be used in other songs now - this is referring to ideas. Many styles of music (Jazz, for example) is based around creative improvisation around a known song - and copyright prevents many melodies and songs to be used in this way, unless you are doing it in a private place - even jamming in a semi-empty bar counts as 'public performance'.