Well I guess it's a good thing no one's proposing a maximum income, isn't it?
If only there were a way to tell how people actually behave. I'm just going off the top of my head here, but you could collect data, then run it through some magical machine, and then you could draw conclusions about behavior! I wish we could have an academic discipline like that.
Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to guess. "the rich hire workers" sounds right; we don't have any way to aggregate capital from lots of people who aren't necessarily rich, and there's no way for a non-rich individual to borrow money to start a business, after all.
The argument of the comic is that if you play by the rules, as time goes on, the probability that you'll get fucked over increase to 1. Think about all the music download services that have gone out of business. If they shut off their authentication server, can you still listen to your music? Will you have to continue using their stagnant program? Do you believe that in the event they do go out of business, they'll allow you to remove the DRM? They may not legally be able to, and if you do it yourself, that's a violation of the DMCA.
Or, you can pirate music/movies/&c, pay less, and forget about the hassle. Your media are compatible with all devices, all programs (except for quality degradations from transcoding). And you don't have to spend extra money if an important company goes under.
I thought the comic was pretty self-explanatory, but I guess not.
What I want to know is whether or not the whole program is designed to make it impossible for a hosting provider to harvest data from the users it hosts and then sell it. I can imagine the provider adding itself as a friend when the account gets created, like that asshole Tom on MySpace, and having access to all the data unless the user unfriends them.
Don't put any private information up there and you will never have to worry about anything private being released.
I believe the main selling point of Diaspora is that you don't have to worry about it, sine it's all under your control anyhow. I find it easier to trust my friends than Mark Zuckerberg.
I think you just looked at one picture and guessed everything else about this thing, because it sounds like you don't know what is going on. This box is a 4.5 inch cube with one corner truncated. It is about 4 inches tall, the same as my DirecTV receiver. If you don't want to show it off, it has an RF remote so you can hide it behind something else.
Who the fuck would buy a blu-ray player that had to plug into another device? It costs a hundred bucks, just get a regular blu-ray player.
Also, 5U? AV rack? What the fuck? Do you actually have components in a rack? You should probably make your own HTPC so that people don't think you're some kind of consumer loser who can't build his own gear. That way, you can plug in an external blu-ray drive.
At the risk of possibly being redundant, I must point out that the remote is RF rather than IR, so you are free to put it in a cabinet. It is a truncated 4.5 inch cube. It is very small.
This is a good idea because right now people on juries just randomly get letters and then show up and sit in on a trial and then vote, and they don't go through any kind of selection process and they don't get any kind of instructions on what they're supposed to be basing their decision on and it's just like "raise your hand if you think he's guilty?" and BAM he goes to jail.
Oh wait, people are asked all manners of questions to figure out if they are likely to be biased for or against a defendant, and receive extensive instructions on what evidence to consider, and the specific questions they're trying to answer using that evidence, and the standard by which they should judge the questions answered.
If you're looking for some reform to make in the judicial system that doesn't involve putting in place a bureaucracy to determine who is capable of deciding legal matters and by definition making that bureaucracy subject to political manipulation, how about making it more difficult for a criminal conviction to be upheld in the event that the court-appointed defense attorney slept through the trial? Or curtailing the dependence on so-called expert witnesses, and mandating the inclusion of dissenting interpretations of the evidence? Or reining in independent forensic laboratories with procedures designed to generate false positives, because their interest is in getting more work from prosecutors' offices?
I think putting one's faith in a body of people is utopian; one would do much better by creating procedures one can rely on.
Me too, but then someone has to set the criteria to allow people a voice in civic life, and that person is necessarily a dictator. You want to live in a republic, you deal with dumbasses.
* H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4, and.mov file formats * MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4, and.mov file formats * Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in.avi file format
So yes, you will be able to use x264 to encode videos that will play on this. But there are a ton of other devices that will stream 1080p H.264 with better audio, so unless you really want the privilege to spend a dollar an episode for a TV show...
Wow, you finally figured it out. The problem in the South, how they held the American Revolution ransom to keep their slaves, then tried to break the country in two to keep them again a hundred years later, how they did everything, including rape and murder, to prevent black people from voting or getting a decent education, was all the fucking liberals running around, fucking everything up for everybody!
That's exactly why you see all the famous liberals in contemporary politics trying to get the government to take away rights from Muslims, gays and women. Fucking liberals.
Also, fuck Robert Byrd. That guy was a cocksucker, especially if he was supposed to be on my side. He was almost as bad as other prominent liberals such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
I'm pretty sure I just got trolled straight to hell.
You can prove anything you want if you get to make up the definitions of words. Liberal means freedom, conservative means tradition. That's why we refer to Western European and Anglophone countries as "liberal democracies" and the Wahhabists in charge of Saudi Arabia as "religious conservatives. "
If you think that North Korea is a liberal country because it has a great degree of government control, then you're an idiot. If you think that the Middle East and central Asia are shitty places to live because of all the liberalism, then you're an idiot. If you think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are illiberal documents because they restrict the power of the government, then you're an idiot.
To believe that liberalism means government control, you would have to ignore hundreds of years of liberal philosophy, or read it and conclude that the entire history of liberal thought was concocted to conceal the horrible truth that liberals get off on the government oppressing everybody. Or, you'd have to be an idiot.
McCain is the one who looks like a catcher's mitt full of Chiclets.
I know it's great to be intellectual and disinterested and say there's no difference between the two parties, but seriously? There's no difference between two approaches a problem if they both involve government intervention? Less intervention is always better?
What about immigration reform? McCain wanted to create a two-tier system of resident non-citizens where some of them were ineligible to pursue citizenship, in effect creating a semi-permanent underclass of immigrants. Obama wanted to allow immigrants the opportunity to gain something other than money in the US and become a part of society. Which approach is more statist? Does the distinction along any other dimension not matter?
If you can't judge the media by its late night comedy shows, then how can you judge?
Think about ideas. Did you ever see a discussion on TV about signing everyone up for Medicare? That is a liberal policy position. Guaranteeing a revenue stream for insurance companies (and nearly achieving universality) is not. The latter defined the left edge of the debate.
The Wyden-Bennett plan was more liberal than the legislation that passed, and it was bipartisan, and it got no coverage.
That's an interesting way of putting it. I guess the difference comes from looking at the left, i.e. a group of people, versus liberalism, a philosophical point of view. Leftists did indeed come up with some incredibly harmful ideas, but that doesn't make these ideas liberal.
The difference is that liberal foundations and think tanks advocate in favor of specific policy outcomes, whereas candidates and political committees advocate in favor of specific electoral outcomes. Using the recent election and legislative battle over health insurance reform as examples, consider the roles of the different organizations.
The GOP tried their damnedest to prevent any reform legislation from passing, because that would allow them to paint Obama and congressional Democrats as failures.
The Democratic party tried to pass any legislation and claim that what passed was the best option so that they could use it to get reelected.
The Center for American Progress, for example, tried to influence the debate in Congress in order to make the legislation better (from their perspective, closer to single payer) so that more poor people would have health insurance and the system overall would experience slower cost growth; to that end, they publicly challenged Democrats who were on the wrong side, and in some cases agitated for their electoral defeat.
The difference is that the parties care about candidates, and the think tanks care about policy.
Do you even own a television? Have you watched any of these so-called liberal media outlets? They all supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, spoke about taxes on the top 5% of the income distribution as hurting public school teachers, and never pointed out that "death panels" and other bullshit lies about the health insurance reform were bullshit lies. They also seem to believe that Republicans just happened to develop all sorts of principled objections to middle-of-the-road policies around January of 2009.
Slashdot Mirror
routed through Pulseaudio to the ALSA driver.
Or to SDL to Arts to OSS.
Well I guess it's a good thing no one's proposing a maximum income, isn't it?
If only there were a way to tell how people actually behave. I'm just going off the top of my head here, but you could collect data, then run it through some magical machine, and then you could draw conclusions about behavior! I wish we could have an academic discipline like that.
Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to guess. "the rich hire workers" sounds right; we don't have any way to aggregate capital from lots of people who aren't necessarily rich, and there's no way for a non-rich individual to borrow money to start a business, after all.
The argument of the comic is that if you play by the rules, as time goes on, the probability that you'll get fucked over increase to 1. Think about all the music download services that have gone out of business. If they shut off their authentication server, can you still listen to your music? Will you have to continue using their stagnant program? Do you believe that in the event they do go out of business, they'll allow you to remove the DRM? They may not legally be able to, and if you do it yourself, that's a violation of the DMCA.
Or, you can pirate music/movies/&c, pay less, and forget about the hassle. Your media are compatible with all devices, all programs (except for quality degradations from transcoding). And you don't have to spend extra money if an important company goes under.
I thought the comic was pretty self-explanatory, but I guess not.
What I want to know is whether or not the whole program is designed to make it impossible for a hosting provider to harvest data from the users it hosts and then sell it. I can imagine the provider adding itself as a friend when the account gets created, like that asshole Tom on MySpace, and having access to all the data unless the user unfriends them.
Don't put any private information up there and you will never have to worry about anything private being released.
I believe the main selling point of Diaspora is that you don't have to worry about it, sine it's all under your control anyhow. I find it easier to trust my friends than Mark Zuckerberg.
MOD PARENT UP for explaining what TFA was whining about.
I bet the ladies just love you.
I think you just looked at one picture and guessed everything else about this thing, because it sounds like you don't know what is going on. This box is a 4.5 inch cube with one corner truncated. It is about 4 inches tall, the same as my DirecTV receiver. If you don't want to show it off, it has an RF remote so you can hide it behind something else.
Who the fuck would buy a blu-ray player that had to plug into another device? It costs a hundred bucks, just get a regular blu-ray player.
Also, 5U? AV rack? What the fuck? Do you actually have components in a rack? You should probably make your own HTPC so that people don't think you're some kind of consumer loser who can't build his own gear. That way, you can plug in an external blu-ray drive.
At the risk of possibly being redundant, I must point out that the remote is RF rather than IR, so you are free to put it in a cabinet. It is a truncated 4.5 inch cube. It is very small.
whoosh, jackass
Thank you for actually having read the opinion.
Since when is pure direct democracy a nice idea in theory?
This is a good idea because right now people on juries just randomly get letters and then show up and sit in on a trial and then vote, and they don't go through any kind of selection process and they don't get any kind of instructions on what they're supposed to be basing their decision on and it's just like "raise your hand if you think he's guilty?" and BAM he goes to jail.
Oh wait, people are asked all manners of questions to figure out if they are likely to be biased for or against a defendant, and receive extensive instructions on what evidence to consider, and the specific questions they're trying to answer using that evidence, and the standard by which they should judge the questions answered.
If you're looking for some reform to make in the judicial system that doesn't involve putting in place a bureaucracy to determine who is capable of deciding legal matters and by definition making that bureaucracy subject to political manipulation, how about making it more difficult for a criminal conviction to be upheld in the event that the court-appointed defense attorney slept through the trial? Or curtailing the dependence on so-called expert witnesses, and mandating the inclusion of dissenting interpretations of the evidence? Or reining in independent forensic laboratories with procedures designed to generate false positives, because their interest is in getting more work from prosecutors' offices?
I think putting one's faith in a body of people is utopian; one would do much better by creating procedures one can rely on.
Me too, but then someone has to set the criteria to allow people a voice in civic life, and that person is necessarily a dictator. You want to live in a republic, you deal with dumbasses.
From the tech specs on apple.com:
* H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats .avi file format
* MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in
* Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in
So yes, you will be able to use x264 to encode videos that will play on this. But there are a ton of other devices that will stream 1080p H.264 with better audio, so unless you really want the privilege to spend a dollar an episode for a TV show...
Wow, you finally figured it out. The problem in the South, how they held the American Revolution ransom to keep their slaves, then tried to break the country in two to keep them again a hundred years later, how they did everything, including rape and murder, to prevent black people from voting or getting a decent education, was all the fucking liberals running around, fucking everything up for everybody!
That's exactly why you see all the famous liberals in contemporary politics trying to get the government to take away rights from Muslims, gays and women. Fucking liberals.
Also, fuck Robert Byrd. That guy was a cocksucker, especially if he was supposed to be on my side. He was almost as bad as other prominent liberals such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
I'm pretty sure I just got trolled straight to hell.
You can prove anything you want if you get to make up the definitions of words. Liberal means freedom, conservative means tradition. That's why we refer to Western European and Anglophone countries as "liberal democracies" and the Wahhabists in charge of Saudi Arabia as "religious conservatives. "
If you think that North Korea is a liberal country because it has a great degree of government control, then you're an idiot. If you think that the Middle East and central Asia are shitty places to live because of all the liberalism, then you're an idiot. If you think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are illiberal documents because they restrict the power of the government, then you're an idiot.
To believe that liberalism means government control, you would have to ignore hundreds of years of liberal philosophy, or read it and conclude that the entire history of liberal thought was concocted to conceal the horrible truth that liberals get off on the government oppressing everybody. Or, you'd have to be an idiot.
McCain is the one who looks like a catcher's mitt full of Chiclets.
I know it's great to be intellectual and disinterested and say there's no difference between the two parties, but seriously? There's no difference between two approaches a problem if they both involve government intervention? Less intervention is always better?
What about immigration reform? McCain wanted to create a two-tier system of resident non-citizens where some of them were ineligible to pursue citizenship, in effect creating a semi-permanent underclass of immigrants. Obama wanted to allow immigrants the opportunity to gain something other than money in the US and become a part of society. Which approach is more statist? Does the distinction along any other dimension not matter?
If you can't judge the media by its late night comedy shows, then how can you judge?
Think about ideas. Did you ever see a discussion on TV about signing everyone up for Medicare? That is a liberal policy position. Guaranteeing a revenue stream for insurance companies (and nearly achieving universality) is not. The latter defined the left edge of the debate.
The Wyden-Bennett plan was more liberal than the legislation that passed, and it was bipartisan, and it got no coverage.
That's an interesting way of putting it. I guess the difference comes from looking at the left, i.e. a group of people, versus liberalism, a philosophical point of view. Leftists did indeed come up with some incredibly harmful ideas, but that doesn't make these ideas liberal.
If they tried to debunk the "death panel" lie, they did a shitty job:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/poll-nearly-half-of-americans-believe-death-panel-falsehood/
I am using "liberal" in pure sense. It is a desire for more government and more regulation and more control.
As I said,
You're an idiot.
Are you kidding me? A war is liberal because it's a large government enterprise? You're an idiot.
The difference is that liberal foundations and think tanks advocate in favor of specific policy outcomes, whereas candidates and political committees advocate in favor of specific electoral outcomes. Using the recent election and legislative battle over health insurance reform as examples, consider the roles of the different organizations.
The GOP tried their damnedest to prevent any reform legislation from passing, because that would allow them to paint Obama and congressional Democrats as failures.
The Democratic party tried to pass any legislation and claim that what passed was the best option so that they could use it to get reelected.
The Center for American Progress, for example, tried to influence the debate in Congress in order to make the legislation better (from their perspective, closer to single payer) so that more poor people would have health insurance and the system overall would experience slower cost growth; to that end, they publicly challenged Democrats who were on the wrong side, and in some cases agitated for their electoral defeat.
The difference is that the parties care about candidates, and the think tanks care about policy.
Do you even own a television? Have you watched any of these so-called liberal media outlets? They all supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, spoke about taxes on the top 5% of the income distribution as hurting public school teachers, and never pointed out that "death panels" and other bullshit lies about the health insurance reform were bullshit lies. They also seem to believe that Republicans just happened to develop all sorts of principled objections to middle-of-the-road policies around January of 2009.