I disagree with you. Why should you expect someone who is going to blow himself up in a airport to act rationally? Experience shows that violent criminals do not always act rationally. What experience are you talking about? Can you name one case of a suicide bomber who acted contrary to their goal of suicide bombing? I doubt it. I expect the best you could do would be to cite a case or two of "cold feet" or perhaps simple incompetence like the recent london car bombers - but nothing like the the out and out irrationality of advertising their intent in so obvious a fashion.
But I think the difference of this incident is that the dumb MIT girl didn't respond to questions about the device, making her suspicious. She told the information counter person that it was a piece of art as she was leaving the counter. Of course she didn't respond to any more questions, she had already turned around and was on her way to find her boyfriend at the arrivals gate. Logan's a loud, busy place, even if the counter person yelled, Star probably would not have heard it above the general din.
The only thing dumb about Star is how dumb she was not to realize just how stupid the rest of the country has become. I don't know about you, but I'm damn tired of pandering to the lowest common denominator. A briefcase could have carried 10x more explosive than she could have strapped on her body and no one would have given her a second look.
Now, start comparing it to risks we accept every day. The risk of getting cancer from the Sun's UV rays. The risk of getting killed when you cross the road. The risk from fossil fuel emissions. The risk of drowning in a hydroelectric dam. Don't forget the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack. That's at least 150% and would be higher if it weren't for the TSA!
Certainly. But talk is one thing, action is another. There is a whole lot of inertia, there is just no way he could ever hope to disband the IRS unilateraly. He'll make a dent in the system, and if that goes well, he might actually garner enough support to eventually make serious changes. But if he ever gets enough to mindshare to do that, it still going to be tempered by all the political concessions he will have to make to get there.
One of the most bizarre and Orwellian things is that the Patriot act is not the "Patriot act". Its official name is (no joke!) the "USA PATRIOT" act. All caps, it stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". Which should be properly written as "U SAP! AT RIOT!" But nobody pays attention to those subliminal commands to actually do something, especially when they are rude enough to call the reader a sap.
I'd hate to see Ron Paul or anyone else who's close enough to being a Libertarian actually make it into office - we'd probably see something pretty close to Anarchocapitalism... I was with you up until that point. Ron Paul as president isn't going to lead the country to anarchocapitalism - the only reason the sprout has been able to lead the country into protofascism is because so much of congress is beholden to the same masters. Those people will still be around and will fight Ron Paul every step of the way. Sure, a few serious changes will make it through, probably the ones that benefit the megalocorps with the most lobbyists. But I believe that they won't be so completely one-sided that they don't also help out the country as a whole to swing back from the sprout's protofascism.
When half of congress is libertarian then your fears will have a reasonable basis, until then you ought to be embracing Ron Paul as another factor, a counter-balancing factor, in the struggle over society's shape and ends, but certainly not an over-whelming, dominating factor.
Well, let's start with the fact that he can't be trusted to, I don't know, TELL THE TRUTH? Do you really think that people, even politicians, are obligated to be publicly truthful about their private personal matters?
Then there is the whole issue of being psychologically unstable? Huh? Where did you get that from? Sounds completely made up to me.
What's illegal about trolling for sex? Maybe paying for the sex you are seeking is a start. Huh? Where did you get that from? He has not been accused for paying or even offering to pay. Yet another completely made up accusation.
I wonder if I could maybe somehow hold that against him if he doesn't vote a certain way, or give me some information that I, as a servant of my foreign country not friendly to the US, could possibly use? The senator's voting record is completely public and subject to extremely wide review. Security clearances are required for people whom must be trusted because the secretive nature of their work means they are only subject to limited to review. Otherwise your argument would be used to justify requiring clearances for just about anyone in civil service.
I don't know about you, but I don't call living within the bounds of the law "conformity" That's because in your conformity you are unable to see outside of the box. Just as an example you listed "sleeping around on your wife" as outside the bounds of the law. Not so, but a great example of your whitebread POV.
If Sen. Craig had to endure half the poly stress I have in my life, this giant loser would not be in a position of public trust, as he shouldn't be. Exactly why shouldn't he be in a position of public trust?
He's a closet gay with all the pressures and contradictions from society which that entails. So what if he's a hypocrite about it? So what if he lied about it? He certainly never promised anyone that he would support pro-gay policies in office, seems like he's kept his word there where public trust counts - to his constituents.
And his arrest? How bogus is that? So what if he was trolling? Since when is hitting on someone illegal? Especially if it is done in such a manner that the only people who would understand that they were being hit on are guaranteed to be adults and at least understanding if not welcoming of his advances?
it is one of the least invasive aspects of my life. Conformity creates a single, extremely brittle and narrowly focused, world-view. You may glory in your white-bread existence, but believe for a second that it is a great thing for you or for your country. I've held clearances from a variety of departments for almost as long as you have and wherever I've been, a large minority of the best and brightest have been the ones who do chaffe at the restrictions that living with a clearance puts on them.
Slippery-Slope You are using that word which does not mean what you think it means.
It's much easier for me to overhear/steal/tcpdump something on the floor where I work all day than to compromise a secure building with badge+biometric Which has nothing at all to do with closed areas. You've clearly never worked at one or you would understand that a closed area is essentially walled off, behind a minimum of two-factor authentication, closed space with no interconnected networking and no network cabling that traverses an open area. You can't hear through the walls and you can't see anything through the windows.
What you consider 'much easier' is in reality marginally easier. Which was the point of my illustration.
And yet you could see someone's briefcase in the john, dial your number on their cell and hear their classified discussions in that special room. You assume that cell phones are allowed in closed areas.
Janitors eventually have to clean the classified room and electricians need to change light bulbs. You assume that (uncleared) janitors, electricians, etc, are not escorted shoulder-to-shoulder in closed areas.
There are just too many opportunities to snoop on someone you are working with in physical contact 8 hours every day. You have never worked in a closed area, have you?
If you work on the same floor as someone handling classified information, you obviously have more chance to steal it than an outsider. If you work for the same company as someone handling classified information you obviously have more chance to steal it than an outsider. So hand over all your personal information and get a new job if you don't pass muster.
If you work in the same neighborhood as someone at a classified facility you obviously have more chance to steal it than an outsider. So hand over all your personal information and get a new new employer if you don't pass muster.
If you live in the same city as someone working at a classified facility you obviously have more chance to steal it than an outsider. So hand over all your personal information and get a new home in a new city if you don't pass muster.
If you live in the same country as someone working at a classified facility you obviously have more chance to steal it than a foreigner. So hand over all your personal information, and get a new home in a new country if you don't pass muster.
The point of this reductio ad absurdum is to show that you don't understand a thing about the handling procedures involved. The level of risk at all the steps above, including your own, is roughly equal.
M$ shouldn't be suing FOSS, but you can't create a new version of a license and retroactively apply it to M$. There is no 'retroactive' anything going on here. No changes to licenses or code already distributed.
It only applies to NEW releases. If an MS voucher is used to distribute a copy of the NEW software, then and only then does the GPLv3 come into play.
All MS has to do is make sure their vouchers don't get traded in for GPLv3 software and they will have nothing to worry about.
You would be a fool *not* to try to wiggle out of all the GPLv3 crap. And the FSF would be a fool *not* to try to have MS hoist themselves by their own petard in response.
You can have the same fun in the web age by posting the name of the secret scientology dark lord: xenu. This cuts of the tcp/ip connection for Scientologists, who are required to install a firewall-like software to protect them from evil words such as xenu.
It sounds unreal but it's true - look it up on google or http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship/word list.html That web page seems to have been last updated on June 30, 2001. Six years later, they've probably fixed a lot of those problems.
It's not a choice between DRM and no DRM, it's a choice between DRM or (say) an extra 80 pounds on the license fee to make up for lost export revenue. That's a gigantic exaggeration. According to the BBC Annual Report the TV license fee produced £3,243million. While BBC Worldwide only "returned £75million in dividends and invested a further £96million directly into BBC programmes..."
That means the foreign licensing only contributes roughly 5% of the budget (actual BBC Worldwide income is roughly £800million, which means roughly £600million of overhead).
So if BBC Worldwide closed shop (the absolute worst case assumption, and really not so likely), the increase to the TV license fee would be roughly £7 per year, not £80. And that's only to maintain parity, a 5% budget cut to cull a couple of lesser quality programs, or reduce some of the £1,100million that goes to "external spend in the UK creative industry," would probably pass without notice.
"Would you be willing to pay an extra 80 pounds a year so 4% of the computer using population can avoid buying Windows?" - I'd know the answer ahead of time. A much less biased and much more accurate question would be: "Would you be willing to pay an extra £7 a year so that anybody on a computer anywhere in the world can watch BBC programmes without any extra hassle?"
So, uh, what non-Hz/telecom or non-marketing based ones again?
Tape drives - tape capacities are universally quoted in base-10.
Hard disk sectors
While the payload is often a power of two, the actual sector on the disk consists of many more bits - error correction, addressing, etc, that do not sum up to a power of two.
Most 'enterprise grade' raid systems (HP, EMC, Netapp, etc) use drives with sector payload sizes of 520 bytes, not 512.
Total capacities of 'enterprise grade" raid systems.
Flash drives of all forms - contrary to your claim, a 2GB compact flash drive is typically 2*10^9 bytes.
In fact, the only two places where powers of two are universally used is in system RAM and filesystem capacities, not raw capacity, only filesystem managed capacity.
This marketing BS always pisses me off. For years and years and years we've used 1024 in the computer world, since it's a power of 2, and computers deal with powers of 2. A 931GB drive is NOT a 1TB drive. And we don't need new stupid labels like tebi, we just need storage manufacturers to stop being retards. Yeah! And I'm really pissed off that my Gigabit-Ethernet card is not a real gigabit either, that's a whole 73,741,824bps that I'm not getting. And my 3GHz cpu is a rip too, it's missing a massivefreaking 221,225,472Hz, what I gotta overclock my cpu to get the advertised performance?
In practice, if you do the standard wipe, which is usually some variant of all-nulls, all ones, 3 times random, there is -zip- chance that anyone will be able to get at the data that was once on the platter. No, I don't think so. See Dan Gutman's paper on Secure Deletion where he comments that with modern PRML based drives such a procedure as you have described is merely "about as well as can be expected." That is a far cry from being able to actually guarantee that an expert employing scanning tunneling microscopy could not extract the data.
This seems like the exact reason why basic physics should be mandatory in schools. Dear God. How exactly would a magnetic field contain neutral photons ? They will generate zero flux and will not interact with the field at all. Clearly adding a flux capacitor to the magnetic field generator is necessary to add flux to the contained photons.
If your goal is vocational training, then you have a point. Europe has a two-track system, maybe Australia does too. But the USA does not, and as long as we don't, then we should not try to covertly turn it into one.
This "one size fits all" approach to education -- the idea that we must churn out "well-rounded" students no matter what an individual student's strengths and weaknesses may be -- is patently idiotic. You exaggerate with the "one size fits all" claim. American schools have plenty of variation in their curricula to allow for a broad range of abilities. Although my impression, at least, is that the "no child left behind" act has encouraged "teaching to the test" thus reducing that flexibility in recent years. But at the very least, part of school in the USA is about learning how to deal with difficult tasks, regardless of subject.
1. If I intend to buy a PS3, and don't know the price is going to drop in 3 weeks, I'll buy it. I'm not getting ripped off, I'm just paying full price for it. A price that I knew and agreed to ahead of time. At this point, you are in direct conflict with the GP who asserted that, "the deals would become no less money-saving."
I'm quite willing to believe that Circuit City may derive a benefit from restricting the early distribution of this information, but they only do so at the expense of the customer. Thus the GP's original claim is false and indeed the deals do become "less money-saving."
they are using the means set up for exactly this reason by the United States justice system. That's debatable, especially considering just how abjectly Apple lost on appeal with their subpoena attempts of AppleInsider and PowerPage.
If you replace "PS3" with "Stock in Company X", it's called insider trading, and it is very much illegal, not to mention immoral and unethical. No it's not even close. One major difference is that this information is being disclosed to the public. Thus it is not "insider" information by the time anyone acts on it. Then there is the other factor that no company is able to set and schedule its own share price on the open market as they do with actual merchandise.
Would the typical user have to deal with this security problem with IE - (NO)? I dunno about anything else, but in no way shape or form would a typical user be running with a non-privileged account on XP. Vista, maybe, but definitely not XP. If you know enough to install software as Administrator, and but run day to day with a non-privileged account, then you are not a typical user.
If you were forced to see the ad at the proper time, the deals would become no less money-saving. Posting the ad early does not suddenly make the deal better, nor occur sooner. If that is true, then the converse must be true too (after all it is a zero-sum game) - his viewing the ad early does not cause the deals to be any less expensive for Circuit City.
Stopping these early postings do nothing but protect the company from illegal information leaks. If, by your own assertion, these leaks have no impact, then what interest does Circuit City have in preventing them? Even if they are "illegal" (a huge leap of faith on your part), if they have no impact, then what protection does Circuit City need?
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing dumb about Star is how dumb she was not to realize just how stupid the rest of the country has become. I don't know about you, but I'm damn tired of pandering to the lowest common denominator. A briefcase could have carried 10x more explosive than she could have strapped on her body and no one would have given her a second look.
Certainly. But talk is one thing, action is another. There is a whole lot of inertia, there is just no way he could ever hope to disband the IRS unilateraly. He'll make a dent in the system, and if that goes well, he might actually garner enough support to eventually make serious changes. But if he ever gets enough to mindshare to do that, it still going to be tempered by all the political concessions he will have to make to get there.
When half of congress is libertarian then your fears will have a reasonable basis, until then you ought to be embracing Ron Paul as another factor, a counter-balancing factor, in the struggle over society's shape and ends, but certainly not an over-whelming, dominating factor.
He's a closet gay with all the pressures and contradictions from society which that entails. So what if he's a hypocrite about it? So what if he lied about it? He certainly never promised anyone that he would support pro-gay policies in office, seems like he's kept his word there where public trust counts - to his constituents.
And his arrest? How bogus is that? So what if he was trolling? Since when is hitting on someone illegal? Especially if it is done in such a manner that the only people who would understand that they were being hit on are guaranteed to be adults and at least understanding if not welcoming of his advances? it is one of the least invasive aspects of my life. Conformity creates a single, extremely brittle and narrowly focused, world-view. You may glory in your white-bread existence, but believe for a second that it is a great thing for you or for your country. I've held clearances from a variety of departments for almost as long as you have and wherever I've been, a large minority of the best and brightest have been the ones who do chaffe at the restrictions that living with a clearance puts on them.
What you consider 'much easier' is in reality marginally easier. Which was the point of my illustration.
If you work in the same neighborhood as someone at a classified facility you obviously have more chance to steal it than an outsider. So hand over all your personal information and get a new new employer if you don't pass muster.
If you live in the same city as someone working at a classified facility you obviously have more chance to steal it than an outsider. So hand over all your personal information and get a new home in a new city if you don't pass muster.
If you live in the same country as someone working at a classified facility you obviously have more chance to steal it than a foreigner. So hand over all your personal information, and get a new home in a new country if you don't pass muster.
The point of this reductio ad absurdum is to show that you don't understand a thing about the handling procedures involved. The level of risk at all the steps above, including your own, is roughly equal.
Lol, how can you be an apostate when you don't even understand what you are renouncing?
It only applies to NEW releases. If an MS voucher is used to distribute a copy of the NEW software, then and only then does the GPLv3 come into play.
All MS has to do is make sure their vouchers don't get traded in for GPLv3 software and they will have nothing to worry about.
It sounds unreal but it's true - look it up on google or http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship/wor
Six years later, they've probably fixed a lot of those problems.
That means the foreign licensing only contributes roughly 5% of the budget (actual BBC Worldwide income is roughly £800million, which means roughly £600million of overhead).
So if BBC Worldwide closed shop (the absolute worst case assumption, and really not so likely), the increase to the TV license fee would be roughly £7 per year, not £80. And that's only to maintain parity, a 5% budget cut to cull a couple of lesser quality programs, or reduce some of the £1,100million that goes to "external spend in the UK creative industry," would probably pass without notice. "Would you be willing to pay an extra 80 pounds a year so 4% of the computer using population can avoid buying Windows?" - I'd know the answer ahead of time. A much less biased and much more accurate question would be:
"Would you be willing to pay an extra £7 a year so that anybody on a computer anywhere in the world can watch BBC programmes without any extra hassle?"
- Tape drives - tape capacities are universally quoted in base-10.
- Hard disk sectors
- While the payload is often a power of two, the actual sector on the disk consists of many more bits - error correction, addressing, etc, that do not sum up to a power of two.
- Most 'enterprise grade' raid systems (HP, EMC, Netapp, etc) use drives with sector payload sizes of 520 bytes, not 512.
- Total capacities of 'enterprise grade" raid systems.
- Flash drives of all forms - contrary to your claim, a 2GB compact flash drive is typically 2*10^9 bytes.
In fact, the only two places where powers of two are universally used is in system RAM and filesystem capacities, not raw capacity, only filesystem managed capacity.Stupid retards!
I'm quite willing to believe that Circuit City may derive a benefit from restricting the early distribution of this information, but they only do so at the expense of the customer. Thus the GP's original claim is false and indeed the deals do become "less money-saving." they are using the means set up for exactly this reason by the United States justice system. That's debatable, especially considering just how abjectly Apple lost on appeal with their subpoena attempts of AppleInsider and PowerPage. If you replace "PS3" with "Stock in Company X", it's called insider trading, and it is very much illegal, not to mention immoral and unethical. No it's not even close. One major difference is that this information is being disclosed to the public. Thus it is not "insider" information by the time anyone acts on it. Then there is the other factor that no company is able to set and schedule its own share price on the open market as they do with actual merchandise.
It's well understood that copyright is a monopoly in distribution. The supreme court regularly uses that language in its opinions.