Except I was going to contribute names that are a little more relevant...
In our office we have really outdated computers that are constantly freezing up and incapable of running modern software. Their names are "Two-Toed Sloth," "Bob Slowski," and "Manatee."
Armadillo is usually pretty good about distributing videos of their flights, but I can't seem to find this one on their website yet. Anyone else had better luck finding a video of this flight?
While the parent post may be wrong about Weird Al's motivation for doing this, I think that's a very insightful effect of moving to single-track releases. Bittorrent is not as good a distribution platform for small files, for the reasons the parent mentions.
I'd say the solution would be to use "complete collection" torrents that have every release by a particular artist. Most modern torrent applications allow you to pick and choose which files to download, so people could still just get the most recent one if they want.
The VG flight plan involves more like 10 minutes of weightlessness. Most of the two-hour flight is taking off attached to WhiteNightTwo, then rocketing up from that, and then gliding back down to landing.
...but I'm guessing you probably meant to link to the President's website rather than a mildly humorous farcical spinoff. I mean, sure, you're a mindless troll, but even trolls should "Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!"
Here's my ethical debate: if a human (with cognitive function) knows the possible risk of experimental treatments and is willing to take that risk, who do these people think they are by disallowing it?
This is exactly like laws requiring seatbelts, prohibiting drug use, and limiting pornography. The idea is, as far as I can tell, that Big Brother is watching out for you, because your cognitive function may be clouded by irrationality. Wouldn't want to let people harm themselves willingly, no sirree.
Politically correct overbearing government-hugging socialists with an obsession with saving people from themselves. That's who they think they are.
While the sluggish inefficiency of bureaucracy is a problem in terms of quality of service, it's even more of a problem in terms of cost.
Unless you tax the citizenry to heinous proportions, there is only a limited government budget to deal with. That budget should be allocated effectively into programs that, for whatever reason, cannot be provided effectively as anything but a government service. For the most part, this means programs that inherently must run net operating losses in order for the service to be at a price point where the public can take advantage of it (and services that are of great importance to the public). I would call these "minor" market failure points.
If the service is one capable of being profitable at a reasonable price point, then there is no reason to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers to run that system -- they will be able to pay someone else instead of the government, and thereby keep money in the economy rather than in the government coffers. And remember, so long as there is competition without antitrust violations, you DO have a say -- it's called voting with your pocketbook, I believe.
I don't see any reason an ISP would fall in the former rather than the latter category. Then again, I don't see any reason a lot of popular government programs do, either.
NOTE: There are of course other motivating factors (such as keeping dangerous powers out of the hands of the politically unaccountable) that tilt in favor of some services being provided by the government (e.g., military/police), but I just think people often forget the most important reason is that you are having to pay for these services either way. Perhaps you'd pay less per capita if you were just paying directly for the service rather than paying the government to employ bureaucrats to pay some independent contractors to provide the service.
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you back up. In an era where the public can so easily exchange ideas, coalescing into like-minded groups that bear no relation to geography, it makes sense that those groups should each have some sort of representation in government. As much as I despise the French and/or Israeli systems, I think we need to move toward some form of proportional representation -- at least for half of our bicameral legislature.
But of course that can NEVER happen. The two-party system is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would either major party (even when it's in the minority) really want to give up the possibility of being in complete control after the next election cycle?
Not to mention the fact that this would require a change to our Constitution. Right now most of the people in our country are so incredibly polarized into these major divisions that I can't imagine getting the types of supermajorities needed for ANY constitutional amendment, let alone something as fundamental as reformulating the allocation of legislators.
So we're stuck with our decaying government. As I've heard many people say before, this experiment in democratic representation had a good run. Maybe next time we'll get it right.
I think you are implying that the DMCA "extended copyright terms." That is not correct, at least not in the way that poster intended. The term of a copyright was extended at an earlier time (I want to say the most recent time was in the 1980s), when Democrats were in control of Congress. Then, when the DMCA was passed by (a Republican) Congress, a Democrat president (Clinton) signed it into law.
But it would be a tragedy if Orion replaced the Shuttle's current functionality. The whole point of Ares/Orion should be exploration, not the menial (and uninspiring) resupply of low-Earth orbit. That's where I'd like to see broader use of commercial options, like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital Sciences, or an assortment of others.
If I were to try to diagnose the political persuasion of/.ers, I'd go with some mixture of libertarianism (in terms of individual freedom) with a smattering of liberalism (mostly on the environmental/foreign policy front). In any case, I'd say most of us hate the idea of a police state, but don't want Big Bad Corporate America to be free to pollute and compete willy-nilly.
Like many of the people in this thread, you are failing to note there is a significant difference between a gag ordered attached to a court order or subpoena, and one attached to a letter from the FBI. I very much doubt this ruling would apply to gag orders attached to the former -- those orders have been at least minimally vetted by the judiciary.
I'm completely comfortable with a gag order being used where the enforcement agency has first received the approval of the judicial branch. It is this unilateral executive branch power that gives me the willies... maybe some judge out there will agree. Though I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not a climate scientist, but I did work in a paleoclimatology lab for awhile in college. I think the main problem I have with the global warming discussion -- like almost any other so-called "controversial" topic -- is that it rapidly becomes an argument among extremists.
NO ONE can deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas. The discussion should therefore be "how much is our CO2 output affecting global climate?" Instead the argument ends up being a battle between people claiming it is a "wildly extrapolated hypothesis" and people saying we're on the verge of a runaway greenhouse effect that will turn Earth into Venus.
I think it is undeniable that the climate is changing -- it has ALWAYS changed. There were times in the history of the Earth when there were ice caps extending almost to the equator. There were also times when there were probably NO permanent ice caps. Climate changes.
Likewise, it's fairly undeniable that increasing the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will tend to push the climate in a warmer direction. If our natural cycle is one of warming, it will accelerate the warmth. If we're in a cooling period, it will decelerate the cooling.
Now if we would just start with that framework, we could have a worthwhile discussion about what type of climate cycle we're in right now, and to what degree our output of CO2 (and the methane produced by the ridiculously large population of cattle we've domesticated) will affect that cycle.
Due to a successful constitutional challenge to the child porn portion of that Act (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), the broad language has been changed. Originally anything that "appeared to be" child pornography was illegal -- now any digital/animation must be "indistinguishable from" actual children being forced to do sexual acts in order to qualify. Here's the relevant language from 18 U.S.C. 2256 (definitions), but also see 2252 (original child porn statute, still on the books), and 2252A (newer child porn statute, should have probably just replaced 2252, but didn't).
Here is the definition, with emphasis added:
(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
I doubt a "cartoon" would qualify.
P.S. The "kind of" is because I'm one year away from finishing law school, and I just took my "Computer Crimes" exam yesterday -- it included this statute.
I think your 130,000 number is very low. This is just a hunch, unsupported by any effort on my part to ascertain the correct number. But I went to a university with over 40,000 students, and I assure you every single one of them had access to the Internet.
I wouldn't want to provide support to an RIAA argument or statistic, but you can't possibly be serious that you think only 13 out of every 30,000 (130,000:300,000,000) Americans has Internet access.
That's for the bill as it was introduced -- couldn't find a copy of the bill post-committee amendments, probably because it hasn't been formatted by GPO yet.
I'm right there with you. I keep hoping there will be something for our brand of conservative to band around. Although the title sounds un-conservative, there is a book that just hit the bookstores this week that I think maybe we can use to rally the old conservatives and save this dying experiment in freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Except I was going to contribute names that are a little more relevant...
In our office we have really outdated computers that are constantly freezing up and incapable of running modern software. Their names are "Two-Toed Sloth," "Bob Slowski," and "Manatee."
Armadillo is usually pretty good about distributing videos of their flights, but I can't seem to find this one on their website yet. Anyone else had better luck finding a video of this flight?
That, and to remind myself that there are other people out there who are as depressed as me about the affairs of government.
No, I believe the GP means the ones that have just come into a large inheritance and need you to give them some money to help them get the inheritance out of Africa and into your bank account.
Nope.
While the parent post may be wrong about Weird Al's motivation for doing this, I think that's a very insightful effect of moving to single-track releases. Bittorrent is not as good a distribution platform for small files, for the reasons the parent mentions.
I'd say the solution would be to use "complete collection" torrents that have every release by a particular artist. Most modern torrent applications allow you to pick and choose which files to download, so people could still just get the most recent one if they want.
The VG flight plan involves more like 10 minutes of weightlessness. Most of the two-hour flight is taking off attached to WhiteNightTwo, then rocketing up from that, and then gliding back down to landing.
...but I'm guessing you probably meant to link to the President's website rather than a mildly humorous farcical spinoff. I mean, sure, you're a mindless troll, but even trolls should "Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!"
This is exactly like laws requiring seatbelts, prohibiting drug use, and limiting pornography. The idea is, as far as I can tell, that Big Brother is watching out for you, because your cognitive function may be clouded by irrationality. Wouldn't want to let people harm themselves willingly, no sirree.
Politically correct overbearing government-hugging socialists with an obsession with saving people from themselves. That's who they think they are.
While the sluggish inefficiency of bureaucracy is a problem in terms of quality of service, it's even more of a problem in terms of cost.
Unless you tax the citizenry to heinous proportions, there is only a limited government budget to deal with. That budget should be allocated effectively into programs that, for whatever reason, cannot be provided effectively as anything but a government service. For the most part, this means programs that inherently must run net operating losses in order for the service to be at a price point where the public can take advantage of it (and services that are of great importance to the public). I would call these "minor" market failure points.
If the service is one capable of being profitable at a reasonable price point, then there is no reason to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers to run that system -- they will be able to pay someone else instead of the government, and thereby keep money in the economy rather than in the government coffers. And remember, so long as there is competition without antitrust violations, you DO have a say -- it's called voting with your pocketbook, I believe.
I don't see any reason an ISP would fall in the former rather than the latter category. Then again, I don't see any reason a lot of popular government programs do, either.
NOTE: There are of course other motivating factors (such as keeping dangerous powers out of the hands of the politically unaccountable) that tilt in favor of some services being provided by the government (e.g., military/police), but I just think people often forget the most important reason is that you are having to pay for these services either way. Perhaps you'd pay less per capita if you were just paying directly for the service rather than paying the government to employ bureaucrats to pay some independent contractors to provide the service.
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you back up. In an era where the public can so easily exchange ideas, coalescing into like-minded groups that bear no relation to geography, it makes sense that those groups should each have some sort of representation in government. As much as I despise the French and/or Israeli systems, I think we need to move toward some form of proportional representation -- at least for half of our bicameral legislature.
But of course that can NEVER happen. The two-party system is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would either major party (even when it's in the minority) really want to give up the possibility of being in complete control after the next election cycle?
Not to mention the fact that this would require a change to our Constitution. Right now most of the people in our country are so incredibly polarized into these major divisions that I can't imagine getting the types of supermajorities needed for ANY constitutional amendment, let alone something as fundamental as reformulating the allocation of legislators.
So we're stuck with our decaying government. As I've heard many people say before, this experiment in democratic representation had a good run. Maybe next time we'll get it right.
I think you are implying that the DMCA "extended copyright terms." That is not correct, at least not in the way that poster intended. The term of a copyright was extended at an earlier time (I want to say the most recent time was in the 1980s), when Democrats were in control of Congress. Then, when the DMCA was passed by (a Republican) Congress, a Democrat president (Clinton) signed it into law.
So both statements WERE true.
Removing might be harder (but unnecessary) than this, but the following will prevent the service from loading:
Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services
Find the Google Update Service, select Properties from the right-click menu, and Disable.
But it would be a tragedy if Orion replaced the Shuttle's current functionality. The whole point of Ares/Orion should be exploration, not the menial (and uninspiring) resupply of low-Earth orbit. That's where I'd like to see broader use of commercial options, like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital Sciences, or an assortment of others.
When was the last time any NASA program was ahead of schedule?? http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/spacex_9enginefire.html
I mean, NASA already has the program in place and already has participants. It would take a hell of a lot less than $4B/year to speed up COTS.
More info: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ccc/
If I were to try to diagnose the political persuasion of /.ers, I'd go with some mixture of libertarianism (in terms of individual freedom) with a smattering of liberalism (mostly on the environmental/foreign policy front). In any case, I'd say most of us hate the idea of a police state, but don't want Big Bad Corporate America to be free to pollute and compete willy-nilly.
But maybe I'm projecting.
Like many of the people in this thread, you are failing to note there is a significant difference between a gag ordered attached to a court order or subpoena, and one attached to a letter from the FBI. I very much doubt this ruling would apply to gag orders attached to the former -- those orders have been at least minimally vetted by the judiciary.
I'm completely comfortable with a gag order being used where the enforcement agency has first received the approval of the judicial branch. It is this unilateral executive branch power that gives me the willies... maybe some judge out there will agree. Though I'm not holding my breath.
Not sure why wet vibrations would be better than dry ones. Unless, of course, you're confusing the verb to damp with to dampen.
I'm not a climate scientist, but I did work in a paleoclimatology lab for awhile in college. I think the main problem I have with the global warming discussion -- like almost any other so-called "controversial" topic -- is that it rapidly becomes an argument among extremists.
NO ONE can deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas. The discussion should therefore be "how much is our CO2 output affecting global climate?" Instead the argument ends up being a battle between people claiming it is a "wildly extrapolated hypothesis" and people saying we're on the verge of a runaway greenhouse effect that will turn Earth into Venus.
I think it is undeniable that the climate is changing -- it has ALWAYS changed. There were times in the history of the Earth when there were ice caps extending almost to the equator. There were also times when there were probably NO permanent ice caps. Climate changes.
Likewise, it's fairly undeniable that increasing the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will tend to push the climate in a warmer direction. If our natural cycle is one of warming, it will accelerate the warmth. If we're in a cooling period, it will decelerate the cooling.
Now if we would just start with that framework, we could have a worthwhile discussion about what type of climate cycle we're in right now, and to what degree our output of CO2 (and the methane produced by the ridiculously large population of cattle we've domesticated) will affect that cycle.
And the fact that I was referring to a completely different statute will be blamed upon sleep deprivation and study exhaustion.
Due to a successful constitutional challenge to the child porn portion of that Act (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), the broad language has been changed. Originally anything that "appeared to be" child pornography was illegal -- now any digital/animation must be "indistinguishable from" actual children being forced to do sexual acts in order to qualify. Here's the relevant language from 18 U.S.C. 2256 (definitions), but also see 2252 (original child porn statute, still on the books), and 2252A (newer child porn statute, should have probably just replaced 2252, but didn't).
Here is the definition, with emphasis added:
(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
I doubt a "cartoon" would qualify.
P.S. The "kind of" is because I'm one year away from finishing law school, and I just took my "Computer Crimes" exam yesterday -- it included this statute.
I think your 130,000 number is very low. This is just a hunch, unsupported by any effort on my part to ascertain the correct number. But I went to a university with over 40,000 students, and I assure you every single one of them had access to the Internet.
I wouldn't want to provide support to an RIAA argument or statistic, but you can't possibly be serious that you think only 13 out of every 30,000 (130,000:300,000,000) Americans has Internet access.
I believe this link works:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2533is.txt.pdf
That's for the bill as it was introduced -- couldn't find a copy of the bill post-committee amendments, probably because it hasn't been formatted by GPO yet.
I'm right there with you. I keep hoping there will be something for our brand of conservative to band around. Although the title sounds un-conservative, there is a book that just hit the bookstores this week that I think maybe we can use to rally the old conservatives and save this dying experiment in freedom.