Basically, those are the guys who run international banking, with the message centers and the networking. As far as I know, their physical location is a secret aswell, only a few of these centers exist in the world. SWIFT is more or less owned by the largest banks in the world, roughly based on their marketshare and size. That was the only way they felt assured that noone is going to swindle them with 8 bit xor "encryption" on financial transactions.
If these guys are cooperating with Bush/the US Govt., then basically the largest banks in the world are cooperating with Bush, giving the US access to international banking.
The reason why I support the abolishment of copyright, support and actively participate in filesharing, but I am against gpl violations is because I couldn't give a fuck about copyrights, all I care about is having an open information age, with the most freedoms guaranteed for creativity and for doing what drives our society forward: incremental progress.
Therefor, violating copyright when it restricts freedom == GOOD.
violating copyright when it is a tool to forbid restriction of freedoms == BAD.
200 hours? I bet he's just simply lieing or uses some bullshit metric.
Answering the hypothetical question
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Does No Child Left Behind mean that nobody can get ahead, either?
Yes. "Not leaving a child behind", in educational context means lowering the level of the education for the average and the smart students.
Anyone with half a brain would tune education for the average person, or very slightly above the average to encourage improvement and the stupid/disabled and smart kids would get special programs to help their development the best. Leaving no man behind is a stupid analogy to the problem, as the stupid kid who can't learn more drags down the kids who can.
Notably absent?
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
I'm continously suprised! The silence of the intellectual crooks is deafening. This rich situation begs for answers.
Rest assured gentlemen, the standing ovation you're producing for opponents of the plan will undeniably create plausive deniability for silently altering the plans in a roaring crescendo victory for freedom.
My server is like a beautiful exotic woman. She ignores the obvious attempts to get close to her, but if you know the right ports, she opens up. Of course, she encourages security and doesn't allow unprotected remote ehm...administration.
this also requires that the Linux community respects Microsoft rather than ridicule it
I do not really care to ridicule this corporation, although they can be ridiculed for many things. However, I do not respect the company, because of their methods to screw over everyone that is not them. Respect is earned, not demanded. I have no reason to respect the technological side of their products either, as I don't really think that without them the field of computing would have been worse off. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults???
Nothing. The trouble is with misinterpreting 2000+ year old religious texts and trying to expose the same distorted sense of morality upon everyone else. Fundamentalists (and generally religious people to a lesser degree) are contradicting themselves on so many levels that they were an AI, they'd have ended up with their circuitry in flames.
Entertainment has nothing to do with science. Interesting "documentaries" on Discovery or someplace else are good to point your attention towards an interesting topic, but they are nothing more. They are not scientific.
Yes, I can hear you saying "but but what about The Inconvenient Truth"?. Indeed, it is only a pointer towards the issue. The fact that it hilights the scientific consensus on climate change, that's the most important message of the documentary.
If you're willing to trust entertainment on a scientific issue, instead of scientists, then that's where your problem is. Now, all is said without even a word talking about the merits of the entertaining piece of television that you're recommending. Given that multiple scientific organizations and the British Royal Society dismissed that movie as unscientific and containing falsehoods, I wouldn't place that much trust in it.
The report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments
Look, I know you're trying to justify your position because you believe climate change isn't man made. But when the overwhelming majority of National Academies of Sciences of the developed world agree that climate change is man made, you'd have to bring some pretty extraordinary evidence to make me doubt that assessment.
Couple this with the Oreskes study, which reported that there is no disagreement that climate change is happening and is man made in the climate science community, I'd say that your position needs explaining more than the science.
If you're trying to deny anthropogenic climate change due to political motivations, I quote:
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a news conference that the report was "sound science" and "As the president has said, and this report makes clear, human activity is attributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."
The dozens of scientists you mention are actually only a single person who have withdrawn from the report.
In January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who was already an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the IPCC had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns.
The conflict centers around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC".
So he didn't resign because he denies global warming, but because he thought one of the scientists at IPCC tried to use IPCC as a vehicle for pushing non-scientific observations.
But there's an inherit flaw in your logic of popular songs being cheapest... if the least-popular cost the most, they're never going to come down and that is because.... nobody is buying it! So the artist still isn't making money!
Yes, it is a bit self reinforcing. However, the difference isn't/shouldn't be that big that interesting new stuff wouldn't get popular.
Why do you expect me to change my beliefs or move the goalpost?
I never supported DRM and I don't consider it acceptable. Media without DRM is better, but not automatically good. I'm okay with a higher price, given that it goes towards the creation of music, not to some publisher that doesn't do anything useful. Fluctuating price is okay, actually I like that...
I might even download the free songs and just donate to the bands I like for their efforts. In my opinion the more popular a song, the less it should cost simply because then the creator has had the chance to recoup his costs. It doesn't mean that popular songs wouldn't bring in extra or more apart from money to cover the expenses, but it wouldn't bring in many many orders of magnitude more - undeservedly - in my opinion.
Also, please let me not argue about the fallacy of attributing many different viewpoints to me. Different people moan about different things.
I don't expect people to give me what I want. But I don't expect to give my money to them if they don't give me what I want. I'm especially careful of supporting companies and I try to make an informed decision in most cases, that not only is about the product, but also about the behaviour of the company I'm giving my money to.
...but I'm willing to support the creation of music. Therefor in my opinion the model should work the opposite way. Popular songs should be cheaper to download.
Actions like these are the difference between a fascist dictatorship and a democracy (yes, even though the USA is a republic, it is also ment to be a democracy so don't bring it up thanks).
Saying that "The State" is right no matter what, is fascist. Currently the government is purging or minimalizing the non-fascist elements within the state. Of course they're doing it on the path of least resistance, so they're keeping up the veil of the justice system, but with the swampy legal system, far reaching laws and by simply ignoring basic rights (habeas corpus, etc.), without means to challenge the state it is a mere facade.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's wait wednesday and see if we have at least something to talk about, mmmkay?
Basically, those are the guys who run international banking, with the message centers and the networking. As far as I know, their physical location is a secret aswell, only a few of these centers exist in the world. SWIFT is more or less owned by the largest banks in the world, roughly based on their marketshare and size. That was the only way they felt assured that noone is going to swindle them with 8 bit xor "encryption" on financial transactions.
If these guys are cooperating with Bush/the US Govt., then basically the largest banks in the world are cooperating with Bush, giving the US access to international banking.
Xandros and other distros had "New Failsafe Graphics Mode for Ubuntu"?
Oh my god, secret Ubuntu coders in hiding!
Because if only she had understood what the proposal is about...
I guess we need to wait for another generation to get into politics, the one that is currently growing up with computers.
The reason why I support the abolishment of copyright, support and actively participate in filesharing, but I am against gpl violations is because I couldn't give a fuck about copyrights, all I care about is having an open information age, with the most freedoms guaranteed for creativity and for doing what drives our society forward: incremental progress.
Therefor, violating copyright when it restricts freedom == GOOD.
violating copyright when it is a tool to forbid restriction of freedoms == BAD.
I've predicted this post five minutes before you've posted it!
Dupe.
He's a big enough ahole indeed.
If this explanation eases the burden on your conscience, fine.
The manual is [redacted], otherwise [redacted].
[redacted]
I think I should finish this long post by summarizing my opinion about the [redacted] manual which is: [redacted].
200 hours? I bet he's just simply lieing or uses some bullshit metric.
Anyone with half a brain would tune education for the average person, or very slightly above the average to encourage improvement and the stupid/disabled and smart kids would get special programs to help their development the best. Leaving no man behind is a stupid analogy to the problem, as the stupid kid who can't learn more drags down the kids who can.
I'm continously suprised! The silence of the intellectual crooks is deafening. This rich situation begs for answers.
Rest assured gentlemen, the standing ovation you're producing for opponents of the plan will undeniably create plausive deniability for silently altering the plans in a roaring crescendo victory for freedom.
My server is like a beautiful exotic woman. She ignores the obvious attempts to get close to her, but if you know the right ports, she opens up. Of course, she encourages security and doesn't allow unprotected remote ehm...administration.
...and that's what I get for not previewing. s/expose/impose/. s/that they/that if they/
Entertainment has nothing to do with science. Interesting "documentaries" on Discovery or someplace else are good to point your attention towards an interesting topic, but they are nothing more. They are not scientific.
Yes, I can hear you saying "but but what about The Inconvenient Truth"?. Indeed, it is only a pointer towards the issue. The fact that it hilights the scientific consensus on climate change, that's the most important message of the documentary.
If you're willing to trust entertainment on a scientific issue, instead of scientists, then that's where your problem is. Now, all is said without even a word talking about the merits of the entertaining piece of television that you're recommending. Given that multiple scientific organizations and the British Royal Society dismissed that movie as unscientific and containing falsehoods, I wouldn't place that much trust in it.
Couple this with the Oreskes study, which reported that there is no disagreement that climate change is happening and is man made in the climate science community, I'd say that your position needs explaining more than the science.
If you're trying to deny anthropogenic climate change due to political motivations, I quote: The dozens of scientists you mention are actually only a single person who have withdrawn from the report. So he didn't resign because he denies global warming, but because he thought one of the scientists at IPCC tried to use IPCC as a vehicle for pushing non-scientific observations.
Why do you expect me to change my beliefs or move the goalpost?
I never supported DRM and I don't consider it acceptable. Media without DRM is better, but not automatically good. I'm okay with a higher price, given that it goes towards the creation of music, not to some publisher that doesn't do anything useful. Fluctuating price is okay, actually I like that...
I might even download the free songs and just donate to the bands I like for their efforts. In my opinion the more popular a song, the less it should cost simply because then the creator has had the chance to recoup his costs. It doesn't mean that popular songs wouldn't bring in extra or more apart from money to cover the expenses, but it wouldn't bring in many many orders of magnitude more - undeservedly - in my opinion.
Also, please let me not argue about the fallacy of attributing many different viewpoints to me. Different people moan about different things.
I don't expect people to give me what I want. But I don't expect to give my money to them if they don't give me what I want. I'm especially careful of supporting companies and I try to make an informed decision in most cases, that not only is about the product, but also about the behaviour of the company I'm giving my money to.
...but I'm willing to support the creation of music. Therefor in my opinion the model should work the opposite way. Popular songs should be cheaper to download.
Rape is such a nasty word. Couldn't we call it "suprise sex"?
Actions like these are the difference between a fascist dictatorship and a democracy (yes, even though the USA is a republic, it is also ment to be a democracy so don't bring it up thanks).
Saying that "The State" is right no matter what, is fascist. Currently the government is purging or minimalizing the non-fascist elements within the state. Of course they're doing it on the path of least resistance, so they're keeping up the veil of the justice system, but with the swampy legal system, far reaching laws and by simply ignoring basic rights (habeas corpus, etc.), without means to challenge the state it is a mere facade.
Microsoft is the hooker that doesn't suck.