A Media company might have allowed, say, VLC (perhaps with funding from RedHat or something) to license its DRM technology. After all, there's no reason for well-designed public key encryption system to be closed source anyway. But if VLC moves on to GPLv3, which is inimical toward DRM, this will never ever ever happen.
But it's not funny. Family Guy is just formulaic now. Here's the run down of a family guy joke:
Character X says something to Character Y. Character Y reminisces about something inappropriate || outlandish || sexual || from the 80s. Har Har. You can see the "joke" coming from a mile away.
Or do you mean all these things will only run under a (You Can't Be) Trusted Computing environment, and this would require kernel support that GPL v3 would make inneffective? Well, guess what, it's already inneffective if you have to give the users the source code. Trusted Computing as the media empires imagine it will never exist in Linux. So what are we losing?
Movies, music, and games...
Hardware producers won't license the Trusted Computing technology unless they can be assured that the media companies are happy. And they won't be.
In this case there are literally thousands of 'cross-platform xmlhttprequest' articles out there, many of them excellent (and many of them based upon copying what Google did, because of course Google invented xmlhttprequest). No Digg!
The Inuit have an absurd number of words for what we call snow. They make distinctions we don't. Similarly, it is not clear that everyone in the world takes 'length' and 'angle' to be significant. We can easily imagine a society where only a figure's topological structure or a figure's number of sides is significant. While the conclusion might seem straightforward to you, good science is done by asking whether our foregone conclusions are true.
When you consider that there is provably no way to determine whether our "experienced consciousness" is epiphenomenal or not, his argument vanishes in a puff of smoke. A digital computer might just "experience" that 2 + 2 is 4 in the same sense we do, independently but a result of the actual computation.
Sorry, computers, and the brain, are digital at the "bottom." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length -- nevermind that the brain works through chemical reactions on finitely many molecules.
What happens when China finally decides to stop lending the US billions of dollars every year? Who is going to pay back the 8 TRILLION dollar debt the US already has? I wonder how much interest someone would have to pay each year on 8 trillion dollars.
I get a lot of e-mails about debt consolidation. Maybe the President should look into it?
9/11's civilian fatalities are irrelevant. Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Indeed, Al Qaeda is an ideological opponent to the old Hussein regime, specifically due to (1) Hussein's decadent lifestyle and secular government, (2) Iraq attempting to overthrow the Iranian religious government, (3) America supporting Iraq in (2) with the very chemical weapons you mentioned. Anybody with even cursory knowledge of Middle Eastern politics could have told you the same thing.
Bush lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, or at least failed to provide due diligence. People are starting to tire of being lied to. Perhaps Bush's motives were noble. History would suggest that the Iraq war was a ruse to consolidate his power at a time when the "War on Terror" was going badly, as has often worked in history. Hussein was not a threat to the United States. At the time of the first Gulf War, Iraq had the third strongest military in the world, behind us and Israel. We whomped them easily, and by 9/11 our economic sanctions had reduced their military to a pittance.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is still free, plotting against us. Our budget and resources are finite, and while I'll concede that the Iraq war has done much to help the Iraqi people, we have diverted important resources from actually stopping terror.
Prior to the first Gulf War, Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil. They set up a diagonal well to tap the Rumaylah oil fields, which are on Iraqi territory. Worse yet, Kuwait was oversupplying the west with oil, instead of sticking to the OPEC release schedules, driving down the cost of oil. So Iraq ended up with less of it, and what they had was worth less too. The first Gulf War was a simple ploy to re-instate the Kuwaiti government so they could keep feeding us cheap oil.
Keep in mind, Hussein talked directly to the US State Department and Oval Office before the first Gulf War trying to find a diplomatic way to solve the Kuwait issue. No recourse was then available, so he told the US State Department that he intended to invade. This was no surprise attack. The Oval Office washed their hands of the whole affair until it became politically expedient. For better or worse, GHWB betrayed Hussein by invading Iraq, who was just prior a strong ally, and crippling the Iraqi economy.
Congratulations on invoking Godwin's law by comparing pacifists to Nazi sympathizers. Read a book, soldier boy.
I'll be brief. I don't have the time to formulate a rigorous answer to your question and bring up some points of my own. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to continue this discussion.
There are two arguments (that I know of) to show that the economy requires roughly 10% of the population to be below the poverty line. The first, which leads naturally to the second, involves undesirable service jobs. Essentially, these service jobs use the poor as a labor pool. Without the poor, who competitively seek these jobs, service industries would face paying their employees far more. This would drive up costs for everyone, raising the cost of living, and ultimately the poverty line.
The other argument is similar. Suppose that by hook or crook (say by raising the minimum wage) everyone below the poverty line was given enough to be above the poverty line. In 2002, this was about 12.4% of the population (iirc). That's a large enough amount of people to significantly raise the amount of money in circulation. That is, suddenly, the US is faced with inflation. The cost of living would rise in response, raising the poverty line. Inflation would be even higher if people slightly above the poverty line were included in the reasoning, since they (iirc) represent about 20% of the population. Including these people is legitimate for proving a slighly weaker, but still staggering point.
The Poverty Line is computed by calculating the cost of a subsistance diet (I believe the figure they use is a national average) and multiplying by three. (The factor was chosen because at the time the poverty line was defined, the average family spent 1/3 of their income on food, a figure that has increased since). Keep in mind that a subsistence diet consists only of that which is necessary to survive for short periods of time. So in 2002, 12.4% of the population didn't make enough to pay rent and eat a nutritious diet. About 20% of the population makes just enough to do both.
A way to summarize the conclusion of these arguments is that the lowest class, even if given money, are still the lowest class. We may perhaps even conclude that we use class as currency, and that money is simply a reflection of it.
IME, you have to fiddle very little with any of Debian's tracks. Sure, you might need to mess around in/etc to configure a package to fit your particular needs, but Debian packages are usually configured with sane defaults. They tend to work for most uses right out of the 'box'. Server packages like Apache and Samba tend to be exceptions -- the defaults are still sane, but you realistically should expect to have to configure a server to fit your needs.
It takes around 5-10 negative mods to get banned. But a positive mod won't counter-act a negative mod with regards to banning. So if a post you make gets moderated up and down a lot, you can get banned and still have a positive net moderation. This has happened to me more than once. And the period of time you're banned for seems to double each time it happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, biased information is far worse than no information. http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_ contents/4
As if anyone who uses IRC has any money...
A Media company might have allowed, say, VLC (perhaps with funding from RedHat or something) to license its DRM technology. After all, there's no reason for well-designed public key encryption system to be closed source anyway. But if VLC moves on to GPLv3, which is inimical toward DRM, this will never ever ever happen.
Are they on the Apple dev site, or just accessible internally?
Character X says something to Character Y. Character Y reminisces about something inappropriate || outlandish || sexual || from the 80s. Har Har. You can see the "joke" coming from a mile away.
Movies, music, and games...
Hardware producers won't license the Trusted Computing technology unless they can be assured that the media companies are happy. And they won't be.
I suppose it is, though I hadn't realized it before. This will be useful in the future. :-)
People buy wine, cheap and expensive, because they like the way it tastes. You can get great $5 bottles if you taste around.
Thank you for the correction and example.
*cough*Microsoft*cough*
$_ =~ s/some/most/;
No, it doesn't.
Would you deny that there's a pattern among the following?
The Inuit have an absurd number of words for what we call snow. They make distinctions we don't. Similarly, it is not clear that everyone in the world takes 'length' and 'angle' to be significant. We can easily imagine a society where only a figure's topological structure or a figure's number of sides is significant. While the conclusion might seem straightforward to you, good science is done by asking whether our foregone conclusions are true.
I'd like to know how you came to conclude this. Did you ask a dog to tell you what his own experiences of his sense of smell are like?
When you consider that there is provably no way to determine whether our "experienced consciousness" is epiphenomenal or not, his argument vanishes in a puff of smoke. A digital computer might just "experience" that 2 + 2 is 4 in the same sense we do, independently but a result of the actual computation.
Sorry, computers, and the brain, are digital at the "bottom." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length -- nevermind that the brain works through chemical reactions on finitely many molecules.
Word. I looked up my installation disc, and 2.6 is installed by default in the PPC version. Must be different on other platforms.
I get a lot of e-mails about debt consolidation. Maybe the President should look into it?
Bush lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, or at least failed to provide due diligence. People are starting to tire of being lied to. Perhaps Bush's motives were noble. History would suggest that the Iraq war was a ruse to consolidate his power at a time when the "War on Terror" was going badly, as has often worked in history. Hussein was not a threat to the United States. At the time of the first Gulf War, Iraq had the third strongest military in the world, behind us and Israel. We whomped them easily, and by 9/11 our economic sanctions had reduced their military to a pittance.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is still free, plotting against us. Our budget and resources are finite, and while I'll concede that the Iraq war has done much to help the Iraqi people, we have diverted important resources from actually stopping terror.
Keep in mind, Hussein talked directly to the US State Department and Oval Office before the first Gulf War trying to find a diplomatic way to solve the Kuwait issue. No recourse was then available, so he told the US State Department that he intended to invade. This was no surprise attack. The Oval Office washed their hands of the whole affair until it became politically expedient. For better or worse, GHWB betrayed Hussein by invading Iraq, who was just prior a strong ally, and crippling the Iraqi economy.
Congratulations on invoking Godwin's law by comparing pacifists to Nazi sympathizers. Read a book, soldier boy.
Sarge is the stable branch.
There are two arguments (that I know of) to show that the economy requires roughly 10% of the population to be below the poverty line. The first, which leads naturally to the second, involves undesirable service jobs. Essentially, these service jobs use the poor as a labor pool. Without the poor, who competitively seek these jobs, service industries would face paying their employees far more. This would drive up costs for everyone, raising the cost of living, and ultimately the poverty line.
The other argument is similar. Suppose that by hook or crook (say by raising the minimum wage) everyone below the poverty line was given enough to be above the poverty line. In 2002, this was about 12.4% of the population (iirc). That's a large enough amount of people to significantly raise the amount of money in circulation. That is, suddenly, the US is faced with inflation. The cost of living would rise in response, raising the poverty line. Inflation would be even higher if people slightly above the poverty line were included in the reasoning, since they (iirc) represent about 20% of the population. Including these people is legitimate for proving a slighly weaker, but still staggering point.
The Poverty Line is computed by calculating the cost of a subsistance diet (I believe the figure they use is a national average) and multiplying by three. (The factor was chosen because at the time the poverty line was defined, the average family spent 1/3 of their income on food, a figure that has increased since). Keep in mind that a subsistence diet consists only of that which is necessary to survive for short periods of time. So in 2002, 12.4% of the population didn't make enough to pay rent and eat a nutritious diet. About 20% of the population makes just enough to do both.
A way to summarize the conclusion of these arguments is that the lowest class, even if given money, are still the lowest class. We may perhaps even conclude that we use class as currency, and that money is simply a reflection of it.
Brevity appears to have gone out the window. ;-)
IME, you have to fiddle very little with any of Debian's tracks. Sure, you might need to mess around in /etc to configure a package to fit your particular needs, but Debian packages are usually configured with sane defaults. They tend to work for most uses right out of the 'box'. Server packages like Apache and Samba tend to be exceptions -- the defaults are still sane, but you realistically should expect to have to configure a server to fit your needs.
Try Debian with a 2.6 series kernel? Sarge can use either. Testing and Unstable install 2.6 by default (though, iirc, so does Sarge)
It takes around 5-10 negative mods to get banned. But a positive mod won't counter-act a negative mod with regards to banning. So if a post you make gets moderated up and down a lot, you can get banned and still have a positive net moderation. This has happened to me more than once. And the period of time you're banned for seems to double each time it happens.