That was Akhenaten. Strangely (or not so strangely), people like Freud proposed that his creation of a monotheistic religion (worshiping Aten) probably was the root of Moses/Judaism. Apparently, everyone's history except the Hebrews' history is a viable option. Jews must have been lying throughout history, but Egyptian history is likely very accurate...
Yes, obviously I was trying to say that there are no live Egyptians in the world.
Or maybe I'm saying that (1) Bible literalists aren't as stupid to think that Egyptian history would necessarily record a global flood and (2) Egyptian civilization would live through a global flood. Maybe Bible literalists don't date the flood right in the middle of Egyptian civilization (which, according to wikipedia, "The civilization began around 3150 BC with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh, and it developed over the next three millennia.") and presume that the flood was just a minor blip and Egyptian civ continued like before after a little rebuilding. Or something like that?
I'm not sure how easy it is to kill a crab without, as others have said, ruining the meat. (I hate seafood, so to me it's ruined already... hehe)
As far as predators, ones that come to mind are are alligators (drag into water and drown them), boa constrictors(suffocate, I guess?), venus fly traps [not an animal, I know] (digest to death?), whales (I think also digest to death?)... and any other animal that "swallows" their prey alive.
Cats play with mice, batting them on the head until they die. Actually, watching cats play with mice is very strange, it seems very cruel to me. Savannah predators do not always go right for the neck nor always kill it outright, there's usually some form of struggle involved. My list of animals floating through my head is growing smaller, umm...
Sharks seem to like biting off human legs without bothering to eat the rest. Or kill the human first. I presume that applies to sharks eating fish...
I believe there are some of the "paralyzing" type that don't kill it, but paralyze it... I'm not sure their brain, what brain they have, is killed though. Spiders catch their prey and there is certainly a significant struggle there... and different spiders give different venom, I don't know that it always kills it, I'm not even sure it kills it before it wraps it...
I think the prevailing view among Bible literalists is that the Egyptian histories don't make a whole lot of mentions of [other] embarrassing "war" losses. "2 million Hebrew slaves walked out of Egypt, across the Red Sea. We followed them after we changed our mind about letting them go. We drove our chariots through the Red Sea pathway and it closed on us, killing us all."
Ancient civilizations didn't seem to particularly like those parts of their history that they thought were embarrassing, and conveniently left them out. Call it a national reporter bias. Especially since, if you didn't have the national reporter bias, someone like the Pharaoh would kill you.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Egyptians would be around to write about getting killed in a global flood. Who recorded that? According to the Biblical record, no Egyptians went on the Ark.
I actually just make it myself. I've even gotten into a small amount of coffee roasting, it's pretty fun and tastes much different when you actually get fresh (i.e., roasted 5 minutes ago) coffee. And real cream.
I go to Starbucks probably once every two months, and most coffee expenditures for me are for beans (either green or roasted, depending on the status of my roaster) and milk and/or cream...
Why would a future generation want to read about me? Why ruin a perfectly good rock with a biography?;)
Actually it's an interesting topic. On the other hand, we have a lot of backups now. We are much more efficient at producing a backup now. It's a tradeoff of producing many copies quickly or few copies that last for a long time (i.e., a chunk of rock).
Seems that the more copies you have, the easier it is to retain them through history... proliferation as opposed to preservation.
Well, I know why I do. But why, eh, an atheist / evolutionist should care? After all, er, not many animals are exactly very "nice" to their prey. I don't see how, from an evolution/atheist worldview, humans are expected to be "humane." I'd be interested in hearing that from someone on that side of the fence:)
Assuming copyright infringement is illegal, then if your intent is to give me the full copy, does it really matter how you give it to me?
You may as well argue that printing something with an inkjet or laserjet printer can never infringe anything, becuase it prints it out one dot at a time. Just very quickly.
Or e-mailing files. Pft, how about a license key? There's nothing illegal about Microsoft requiring a license for using its software, right? So, if I give you my license one character at a type and you type it into a copy of XP one character at a time, it's not illegal?
This is, IMO, a ridiculous argument... sort of like Xenos famous logical argument that movement is impossible.
ya. i hav better idea. ppl shuld just talk in txt format. saves b/w. and whales. l8r
Seriously, though, I don't exactly get how a shorter URL is going to Save Our Bandwidth. Seems like making CNET articles that make you click "Next" 20 times into one page would be even more effective.;)
The math, for those interested:
So to calculate the bandwidth utilization we took the visits per month (1,273,0004,274) and divided it by 31. Giving us 41,064,654. We then multiplied that by 20, to give us the transfer in kilobytes per day of downstream waste, based on 20k of waste per visit. This gave us 821293080, which we then divided by 86400 which is the number of seconds in a day. This gives us 9505 kilobytes per second, but we want it in kilobits, so we multiply it by 8. Giving us 76040, finally we divide that by 1024 to give us the value in MBits/sec. Giving us 74Mbit/sec. One caveat with these calculations is that we do not factor in gzip compression. Using gzip compression, we could safely divide the bandwidth wasting figures by about 50%. Browser caching does not factor in the downstream values, as we are calculating the waste just on the HTML file. It could impact the upstream usage as not all objects maybe requested with every HTML request.
The point is spending money on something not necessary (coffee, especially Starbucks branded, is not necessary), not money -> hours necessarily. Point with the Starbucks thing was actually that people are willing to pay more money than its worth (IMO, of course) AND wait in line for X amount of time.
I was not attempting to say that everyone who pirates movies also drinks coffee. However, I'm pretty sure some of the poeple that drink Starbucks coffee, epsecially with all the techies that go there, also pirate movies. And students. And... etc.
People spend $30 at Starbucks in a week pretty easily, spend probably half an hour or so in line (presuming 10 visits to Starbucks at $3 each visit, 5 minutes in the store). Many still think that $30 (or even $15) for 1.5 to 3 hours of entertainment, no matter how bad it is, is too much.
And Starbucks, IMO, isn't even all that great coffee.
There are a lot of excuses as to why people download movies rather than renting them, but they're all pretty suspect.
IMO, very true. Seems one of the more common ones is "Well if I like it, I'll buy it." Apparently, we only have to pay for what we use if we like it. Try doing that at a restaurant, hehe.
Oh. So I guess if it's just a civil offense, I can actively try to protect you from the law, and it's fine?
I know the whole file sharing legality thing is debated, so it's on a strange premise to begin with. I would say, though, that certainly some file sharing is illegal. It's hard to say that to free software/open source people, but at some point there does have to be some ramifications for redistributing software that you don't have the licensed right to redistribute. And at some point, it's "illegal" if you do something that you are not licensed to do...
It's not illegal to do certain drugs in certain countries (Netherlands, Venezuela).
I know that. That's why I said suppose it IS illegal. And besides, it's illegal in the US. I'm not saying it's "world wide illegal" as though there were some world government deciding that recreational drug usage is illegal.
I could have chosen something else, but drug usage is a very similar one since so many people think it should be legal (in the US), as with file sharing.
As for the suing owner of establishment, I don't know that you can't do that if you actually know that the owner was aware of the activity and did not report it, and in fact, tried to hide it. Especially if he explicitly said "Hey, if you pay my $10 a month, I'll actively try to keep you from getting caught!"
In California, it was pretty common to have "earthquake" supplies. Bottled (5 gallon things, usually) water, beans/rice/dry goods, canned goods, etc.
But you're right, these days it doesn't happen anymore. People expect that nothing bad will happen and if it will, it certainly won't affect... grocery stores or something...
Used to be even a bad snow would cause bad things to happen (supply trains couldn't get through, which means no external sources of food, so if your crops went badly or your whole town's crops...).
Let's assume, for the purpose of this post, that something someone is torrenting is illegal.
TPB is coming out with a paid service to keep you from being caught.
Let's assume you are, I don't know... doing illegal drugs. It doesn't matter if you think it should or shouldn't be illegal to do them, it's illegal in your hypothetical situation that I put you in;) I come out with a paid "service" (say, a very dark alley that is guarded) to help keep you from being caught in your illegal [drug using] activities.
I'm pretty sure that's, at the very last, something to do with aiding/abetting and is usually considered illegal. Just because all you did was "drive the getaway car" doesn't mean you're not an accomplice.
Whoosh and all that, but seriously - yes, you do, but I assume some people assume that if they don't put any personal details up, they can't be found... and forget that their 'friends' may have personal information, etc.
So, to be anonymous, I need to get behind 7 proxies, use tor and ssh on a hacked wifi that I'm accessing via a pringles can-tenn from across state or national lines and make sure that all of the social network connections I have are to similarly protected people (behind 7 proxies, use tor and ssh on a hacked wifi that they are accessing via a pringles can-tenn from across state or national lines).
Slashdot Mirror
That was Akhenaten. Strangely (or not so strangely), people like Freud proposed that his creation of a monotheistic religion (worshiping Aten) probably was the root of Moses/Judaism. Apparently, everyone's history except the Hebrews' history is a viable option. Jews must have been lying throughout history, but Egyptian history is likely very accurate...
Hm.
Yes, obviously I was trying to say that there are no live Egyptians in the world.
Or maybe I'm saying that (1) Bible literalists aren't as stupid to think that Egyptian history would necessarily record a global flood and (2) Egyptian civilization would live through a global flood. Maybe Bible literalists don't date the flood right in the middle of Egyptian civilization (which, according to wikipedia, "The civilization began around 3150 BC with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh, and it developed over the next three millennia.") and presume that the flood was just a minor blip and Egyptian civ continued like before after a little rebuilding. Or something like that?
I'm not sure how easy it is to kill a crab without, as others have said, ruining the meat. (I hate seafood, so to me it's ruined already... hehe)
As far as predators, ones that come to mind are are alligators (drag into water and drown them), boa constrictors(suffocate, I guess?), venus fly traps [not an animal, I know] (digest to death?), whales (I think also digest to death?)... and any other animal that "swallows" their prey alive.
Cats play with mice, batting them on the head until they die. Actually, watching cats play with mice is very strange, it seems very cruel to me. Savannah predators do not always go right for the neck nor always kill it outright, there's usually some form of struggle involved. My list of animals floating through my head is growing smaller, umm...
Sharks seem to like biting off human legs without bothering to eat the rest. Or kill the human first. I presume that applies to sharks eating fish...
I believe there are some of the "paralyzing" type that don't kill it, but paralyze it ... I'm not sure their brain, what brain they have, is killed though. Spiders catch their prey and there is certainly a significant struggle there... and different spiders give different venom, I don't know that it always kills it, I'm not even sure it kills it before it wraps it...
Sure it does, you just have to get a precise enough scale. Maybe one like this one would work... ;)
It's amazing to Bible Literalists?
I think the prevailing view among Bible literalists is that the Egyptian histories don't make a whole lot of mentions of [other] embarrassing "war" losses. "2 million Hebrew slaves walked out of Egypt, across the Red Sea. We followed them after we changed our mind about letting them go. We drove our chariots through the Red Sea pathway and it closed on us, killing us all."
Ancient civilizations didn't seem to particularly like those parts of their history that they thought were embarrassing, and conveniently left them out. Call it a national reporter bias. Especially since, if you didn't have the national reporter bias, someone like the Pharaoh would kill you.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what Egyptians would be around to write about getting killed in a global flood. Who recorded that? According to the Biblical record, no Egyptians went on the Ark.
I actually just make it myself. I've even gotten into a small amount of coffee roasting, it's pretty fun and tastes much different when you actually get fresh (i.e., roasted 5 minutes ago) coffee. And real cream.
I go to Starbucks probably once every two months, and most coffee expenditures for me are for beans (either green or roasted, depending on the status of my roaster) and milk and/or cream...
Why would a future generation want to read about me? Why ruin a perfectly good rock with a biography? ;)
Actually it's an interesting topic. On the other hand, we have a lot of backups now. We are much more efficient at producing a backup now. It's a tradeoff of producing many copies quickly or few copies that last for a long time (i.e., a chunk of rock).
Seems that the more copies you have, the easier it is to retain them through history... proliferation as opposed to preservation.
In other words: offsite [reliable] backups.
I don't know what red looks like to you
In Soviet Russia, red looks like you.
Something like that. Had to do it. My apologies to any Russians on Slashdot, I know it's not Soviet Russia anymore. Etc.
I'm curious why we care?
Well, I know why I do. But why, eh, an atheist / evolutionist should care? After all, er, not many animals are exactly very "nice" to their prey. I don't see how, from an evolution/atheist worldview, humans are expected to be "humane." I'd be interested in hearing that from someone on that side of the fence :)
Does that work with, er, normal everday little-black-thing ants? (seriously asking... :) )
Sorry, Zeno. :)
So this is basically Zeno's argument applied to network communications.
Yes it is copyright infringement.
Assuming copyright infringement is illegal, then if your intent is to give me the full copy, does it really matter how you give it to me?
You may as well argue that printing something with an inkjet or laserjet printer can never infringe anything, becuase it prints it out one dot at a time. Just very quickly.
Or e-mailing files. Pft, how about a license key? There's nothing illegal about Microsoft requiring a license for using its software, right? So, if I give you my license one character at a type and you type it into a copy of XP one character at a time, it's not illegal?
This is, IMO, a ridiculous argument... sort of like Xenos famous logical argument that movement is impossible.
ya. i hav better idea. ppl shuld just talk in txt format. saves b/w. and whales. l8r
Seriously, though, I don't exactly get how a shorter URL is going to Save Our Bandwidth. Seems like making CNET articles that make you click "Next" 20 times into one page would be even more effective. ;)
The math, for those interested:
So to calculate the bandwidth utilization we took the visits per month (1,273,0004,274) and divided it by 31. Giving us 41,064,654. We then multiplied that by 20, to give us the transfer in kilobytes per day of downstream waste, based on 20k of waste per visit. This gave us 821293080, which we then divided by 86400 which is the number of seconds in a day. This gives us 9505 kilobytes per second, but we want it in kilobits, so we multiply it by 8. Giving us 76040, finally we divide that by 1024 to give us the value in MBits/sec. Giving us 74Mbit/sec. One caveat with these calculations is that we do not factor in gzip compression. Using gzip compression, we could safely divide the bandwidth wasting figures by about 50%. Browser caching does not factor in the downstream values, as we are calculating the waste just on the HTML file. It could impact the upstream usage as not all objects maybe requested with every HTML request.
The point is spending money on something not necessary (coffee, especially Starbucks branded, is not necessary), not money -> hours necessarily. Point with the Starbucks thing was actually that people are willing to pay more money than its worth (IMO, of course) AND wait in line for X amount of time.
I was not attempting to say that everyone who pirates movies also drinks coffee. However, I'm pretty sure some of the poeple that drink Starbucks coffee, epsecially with all the techies that go there, also pirate movies. And students. And ... etc.
People spend $30 at Starbucks in a week pretty easily, spend probably half an hour or so in line (presuming 10 visits to Starbucks at $3 each visit, 5 minutes in the store). Many still think that $30 (or even $15) for 1.5 to 3 hours of entertainment, no matter how bad it is, is too much.
And Starbucks, IMO, isn't even all that great coffee.
There are a lot of excuses as to why people download movies rather than renting them, but they're all pretty suspect.
IMO, very true. Seems one of the more common ones is "Well if I like it, I'll buy it." Apparently, we only have to pay for what we use if we like it. Try doing that at a restaurant, hehe.
Oh. So I guess if it's just a civil offense, I can actively try to protect you from the law, and it's fine?
I know the whole file sharing legality thing is debated, so it's on a strange premise to begin with. I would say, though, that certainly some file sharing is illegal. It's hard to say that to free software/open source people, but at some point there does have to be some ramifications for redistributing software that you don't have the licensed right to redistribute. And at some point, it's "illegal" if you do something that you are not licensed to do...
It's not illegal to do certain drugs in certain countries (Netherlands, Venezuela).
I know that. That's why I said suppose it IS illegal. And besides, it's illegal in the US. I'm not saying it's "world wide illegal" as though there were some world government deciding that recreational drug usage is illegal.
I could have chosen something else, but drug usage is a very similar one since so many people think it should be legal (in the US), as with file sharing.
As for the suing owner of establishment, I don't know that you can't do that if you actually know that the owner was aware of the activity and did not report it, and in fact, tried to hide it. Especially if he explicitly said "Hey, if you pay my $10 a month, I'll actively try to keep you from getting caught!"
In California, it was pretty common to have "earthquake" supplies. Bottled (5 gallon things, usually) water, beans/rice/dry goods, canned goods, etc.
But you're right, these days it doesn't happen anymore. People expect that nothing bad will happen and if it will, it certainly won't affect ... grocery stores or something...
Used to be even a bad snow would cause bad things to happen (supply trains couldn't get through, which means no external sources of food, so if your crops went badly or your whole town's crops...).
Let's assume, for the purpose of this post, that something someone is torrenting is illegal.
TPB is coming out with a paid service to keep you from being caught.
Let's assume you are, I don't know... doing illegal drugs. It doesn't matter if you think it should or shouldn't be illegal to do them, it's illegal in your hypothetical situation that I put you in ;) I come out with a paid "service" (say, a very dark alley that is guarded) to help keep you from being caught in your illegal [drug using] activities.
I'm pretty sure that's, at the very last, something to do with aiding/abetting and is usually considered illegal. Just because all you did was "drive the getaway car" doesn't mean you're not an accomplice.
Whoosh and all that, but seriously - yes, you do, but I assume some people assume that if they don't put any personal details up, they can't be found... and forget that their 'friends' may have personal information, etc.
So, to be anonymous, I need to get behind 7 proxies, use tor and ssh on a hacked wifi that I'm accessing via a pringles can-tenn from across state or national lines and make sure that all of the social network connections I have are to similarly protected people (behind 7 proxies, use tor and ssh on a hacked wifi that they are accessing via a pringles can-tenn from across state or national lines).
;)
That said, I agree. =D
I was trained as a touch typist, and quiet keyboards have screwed with my accuracy.
I think I understand, but that sentence really doesn't make a lot of sense if one thinks about it, hehe.
I'm unsure of what you're not sure of in most keyboard ugly.
[sic]
;)
Basements with windows seems slightly ridiculous.
Of course, anything with Windows seems slightly ridiculous I guess.
[tongue in cheek, posted from Win XP..)