...but in defense of the law, the RIAA, and the concept here, the person isn't just making a personal copy. If they commit copyright infringement, the theory is that they're distributing and enabling a chain of other people to receive copies.
That being said, $150,000 is ridiculous and the RIAA is evil.
I would suggest using internal tools like Alfresco, Sharepoint, Jabber, Wiki, whatever to increase social interaction within the company without the need for sites like Facebook.
When the DoJ was asking for search records, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft all handed them over, before they were formally asked. Google refused and said they wouldn't hand over data without a warrant.
Yahoo and Microsoft turned over journalists in China. Google didn't want to conform with Chinese censorship, and was the only company to fight China at all. Eventually they conceeded it was better to have an in road in China rather than not do business there at all, but Google is the only one to put on the page that the search results are censored.
If Google, Yahoo and Microsoft worked together, they'd have the clout to fight censorship.
Google and Yahoo are both building major new datacenters within 15 miles of me, and Microsoft is building a new one within 100 miles. I plan on checking out all the new datacenters as well when I apply for jobs there.
I'm going to go on a limb and say that the devs who wrote the source code didn't initially write that browser on the Cell, given that the Cell was late and held up the PS3 launch. I'm sure internally, they developed initially on a more standard architecture. Given that they didn't have the Cell, they had to.
Actually I believe most states in the country have a consent window. For instance, in Nebraska, you can have consensual sex at 16, but you're an adult at 19. A 19 year old can't have sex with a 16 year old, but a 17 year old can.
I wouldn't be shocked in similiar exceptions would be made for a 17 year old photographing or possessing a photograph of a 16 year old.
However, a 30 year old owning or taking that photograph is another story.
I believe the law would suggest the 16 year old can not consent to having that picture end up in the hand of a 30 year old.
Altavista, in the days before Google used to publish a list of the top search terms each month. Lolita often hovered around the #2 most searched for term on the internet. I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that true kiddie porn and pedophilia isn't looking for late teens involved in legal, consensual activities, but rather the victimization of younger children.
I would suggest that statistics don't lie, except that isn't true.
However, I just heard Petraeus quote those numbers last week. For one, I think you underestimate how safe a good chunk of Iraq is these days. Angelina Jolie went over a few months back, toured the country, and as a vocal opponent of the war she said she was amazed the positive progress. She said millions of refugees have reentered cities, returned to their homes and resumed their lives. She spoke of the safety in cities, and how it must be preserved.
Conversely, Detroit often bounces back and forth as the murder capitol of the country.
A quick Google search shows someone's (crude) estimates coming up with similar results. For one, he estimates the population around 6 million in Baghdad, while many others claim 7 million, so he estimated on the high side for murder ratios. Still, it was lower than Detroit.
That depends. If you insist Bush lied to go to war, then Clinton must have lied about it first since two of the countries he bombed were on the grounds that Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
Some dead French dude (inside joke) once said I don't agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I've long contended that free speech is free speech. It must be an absolute. Even hate speech. If you want to say you hate all Yankees fans, then say it. You have the right to express that opinion. You don't however have the right to harm them, or incite others to do so.
Who was the judge that said the right to swing your first ends at the tip of my nose?
I will agree that our sensibilities are out of whack that we treat sex as the ultimate evil in the media, while violence is acceptable. A game like Manhunt where you mock-stab with the Wii-mote is fine, but a sex mini-game that occurs with clothed video-game models and is only unlocked with modification is worthy of Congressional attention.
That being said, the production of kiddie porn involves victimizing the child.
The original poster claimed we wanted to invade nations with oil.
That is a fallacy as we didn't get the oil, nor do we go around invading everyone with oil.
Those private corporations are still worse off today with the war, since the economy was worsened to the point that their stock values have plummeted.
Money does often motivate war, but not always. WWI was inspired by overall greed since the old empires were breaking up, and everyone saw an opportunity to redraw the map, which pretty much has happened in the entire recorded history of Europe. One could contend it was more about ego than direct wealth, since occupying new land didn't mean one would personally profit from it. Many empires in fact have been bankrupt by over-expansion.
One could even contend that the US is running the risk of bankrupting itself by getting into wars it can't afford.
Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists. Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.
Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.
The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.
Actually Bill Clinton came to Bush's defense saying that for years first hand he saw plenty of intel proving the WMD existed. That is why he justified bombing Iraq. Heck, he also bombed Sudan on the basis that Sudan was developing WMD for Iraq. Over 30 different countries came forward with their own intel on Iraq's WMD. The UN Security Council unanimously voted over 75 times finding Iraq in violation of the terms of the cease-fire.
In case you forget, the terms of the cease fire authorized military force if Iraq was not COMPLETELY COMPLICIT in the terms. 75 violations is authorization in and of itself. Driving Kurds into the mountains and attempting genocide is authorization in and of itself. Shutting off and food and water to towns while building dozens of personal palaces is authorization in and of itself. The well being of 30 million people is authorization in and of itself. Recent statistics show Baghdad today is safer than Detroit.
Two weeks before we went into Iraq, Bush held a speech saying that we'd go into Iraq in two weeks. Immediately after that, we watched caravans of vehicles leave Baghdad heading for Syria and Colin Powell immediately said that we'd likely never find the huge stockpiles now as they were leaving the country.
Despite that we still found missiles filled with Sarin gas, documentation for WMD, storage facilities for WMD, training manuals for WMD, etc.
Never mind that both parties universally said that Iraq had and pursued WMD for over 11 years. Never mind the entire world said Iraq had WMD.
Clearly, one person made up the story years later, and people believed the lie retroactively before he was in office.
Your logic makes so much more sense, that you were modded up.
I wish I had the answer, but if I were in charge I'd start with medical and psychological studies into pedophilia, and while sex offenders are the group most likely to repeat their crimes once released from prison.
Locally I keep seeing cities passing laws saying sex offenders can't live in their towns. I see sex registry laws that are doubly-unconstitutional (ex post facto and double-jeopardy). The current plan seems to be shoving sex offenders away and pretending like that will solve anything.
Chemical castration has worked in extreme cases, and if there is a medical issue with these offenders (biological or psychological) then you will most likely need to treat that problem. Instead of publicly vilifying these people, encourage them to seek out medical treatment anonymously before they victimize others.
Canada has a huge surpluss of oil and we're not invading them.
Let's play devil's advocate for two seconds.
1 - We haven't financially gained from invading Iraq. Quite the opposite. The war has cost us greatly, and we have no control over Iraqi oil anymore. We help guard it, but we don't own it.
2 - Republicans don't go to war more then Democrats. Both parties voted to go to war. People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11. Bush pushed for diplomacy and intel. That intel concluded that Saddam had no ties to 9/11. A warmonger strikes while the iron is hot, not pushes for diplomacy for a few more years.
3 - Clinton while in office bombed 4 different countries without pursuing diplomacy in any of those cases. He didn't ask permission, talk to the UN, consult with allies, or give warnings. He just bombed. The funny thing is that few people argued because it was over so quick, where as a land war is costly and lasts for years.
I really hate the notion that Republicans are more likely to be war-mongers than Democrats, not because I agree with all Republicans, but because the assertion is foolish.
I also really hate the notion that Americans are war-mongers. In almost every use of American forces, they were requested by the UN, and in most cases (embassy evacuations, small peace-keeping missions, etc) the military is used briefly, and without bloodshed. For instance, when troops were issued to Liberia in 2003, they prevented bloodshed, but you don't hear about things like that.
Please, stop ignorant trolling. It isn't funny, and it only spreads FUD.
It is an absolute. Either you have it 100%, or you don't have it at all. And the idiots who think that censorship stops child pornography neither understand pedophiles nor censorship. It is akin to DRM, where you don't stop the problem (pirates/pedophiles/whatever) and instead punish everyone else.
If you're upset by kiddie porn, then treat the problem. Don't shut off the internet.
Rock Band is devoid of gameplay besides allowing you to play song.
Guitar Hero offered a plot, unlocking levels, equipment, characters, etc. The guitar battles are especially nice. Guitar Hero will allow you to co-op the campaign, where as Rock Band will not let you do the World Tour online.
I'm a huge XKCD fan, but out of these 8 strips, it might be a reach to call 2 funny. I think they both failed.
What I'd have preferred instead of arbitrary subjects that intrinsically aren't funny, is for them to play off each other. One writes a comic of their choosing that fits within their comic idiom. The next plays directly off that comic trying to top if, within their idiom.
Slashdot Mirror
...but in defense of the law, the RIAA, and the concept here, the person isn't just making a personal copy. If they commit copyright infringement, the theory is that they're distributing and enabling a chain of other people to receive copies.
That being said, $150,000 is ridiculous and the RIAA is evil.
I would suggest using internal tools like Alfresco, Sharepoint, Jabber, Wiki, whatever to increase social interaction within the company without the need for sites like Facebook.
Maybe, maybe not.
When the DoJ was asking for search records, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft all handed them over, before they were formally asked. Google refused and said they wouldn't hand over data without a warrant.
Yahoo and Microsoft turned over journalists in China. Google didn't want to conform with Chinese censorship, and was the only company to fight China at all. Eventually they conceeded it was better to have an in road in China rather than not do business there at all, but Google is the only one to put on the page that the search results are censored.
If Google, Yahoo and Microsoft worked together, they'd have the clout to fight censorship.
Same here.
Google and Yahoo are both building major new datacenters within 15 miles of me, and Microsoft is building a new one within 100 miles. I plan on checking out all the new datacenters as well when I apply for jobs there.
I'm going to go on a limb and say that the devs who wrote the source code didn't initially write that browser on the Cell, given that the Cell was late and held up the PS3 launch. I'm sure internally, they developed initially on a more standard architecture. Given that they didn't have the Cell, they had to.
The comparison is the PS3 browser.
Bingo.
Why distribute it? Is there any good reason to distribute pictures of your underage girlfriend?
You assert and insist WMD didn't exist, yet some were found.
Look up the definition of fascist. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Also, look up deceit.
Heck, buy yourself a dictionary.
Actually I believe most states in the country have a consent window. For instance, in Nebraska, you can have consensual sex at 16, but you're an adult at 19. A 19 year old can't have sex with a 16 year old, but a 17 year old can.
I wouldn't be shocked in similiar exceptions would be made for a 17 year old photographing or possessing a photograph of a 16 year old.
However, a 30 year old owning or taking that photograph is another story.
I believe the law would suggest the 16 year old can not consent to having that picture end up in the hand of a 30 year old.
Altavista, in the days before Google used to publish a list of the top search terms each month. Lolita often hovered around the #2 most searched for term on the internet. I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that true kiddie porn and pedophilia isn't looking for late teens involved in legal, consensual activities, but rather the victimization of younger children.
I would suggest that statistics don't lie, except that isn't true.
However, I just heard Petraeus quote those numbers last week. For one, I think you underestimate how safe a good chunk of Iraq is these days. Angelina Jolie went over a few months back, toured the country, and as a vocal opponent of the war she said she was amazed the positive progress. She said millions of refugees have reentered cities, returned to their homes and resumed their lives. She spoke of the safety in cities, and how it must be preserved.
Conversely, Detroit often bounces back and forth as the murder capitol of the country.
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/murder-rate-in-baghdad.html
A quick Google search shows someone's (crude) estimates coming up with similar results. For one, he estimates the population around 6 million in Baghdad, while many others claim 7 million, so he estimated on the high side for murder ratios. Still, it was lower than Detroit.
Did he do so under false pretences?
That depends. If you insist Bush lied to go to war, then Clinton must have lied about it first since two of the countries he bombed were on the grounds that Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
Some dead French dude (inside joke) once said I don't agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I've long contended that free speech is free speech. It must be an absolute. Even hate speech. If you want to say you hate all Yankees fans, then say it. You have the right to express that opinion. You don't however have the right to harm them, or incite others to do so.
Who was the judge that said the right to swing your first ends at the tip of my nose?
I will agree that our sensibilities are out of whack that we treat sex as the ultimate evil in the media, while violence is acceptable. A game like Manhunt where you mock-stab with the Wii-mote is fine, but a sex mini-game that occurs with clothed video-game models and is only unlocked with modification is worthy of Congressional attention.
That being said, the production of kiddie porn involves victimizing the child.
The original poster claimed we wanted to invade nations with oil.
That is a fallacy as we didn't get the oil, nor do we go around invading everyone with oil.
Those private corporations are still worse off today with the war, since the economy was worsened to the point that their stock values have plummeted.
Money does often motivate war, but not always. WWI was inspired by overall greed since the old empires were breaking up, and everyone saw an opportunity to redraw the map, which pretty much has happened in the entire recorded history of Europe. One could contend it was more about ego than direct wealth, since occupying new land didn't mean one would personally profit from it. Many empires in fact have been bankrupt by over-expansion.
One could even contend that the US is running the risk of bankrupting itself by getting into wars it can't afford.
If the entire ship sinks, even the wealthy drown.
Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists. Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.
Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.
The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.
WMD did exist. Talk about old rhetoric.
Actually Bill Clinton came to Bush's defense saying that for years first hand he saw plenty of intel proving the WMD existed. That is why he justified bombing Iraq. Heck, he also bombed Sudan on the basis that Sudan was developing WMD for Iraq. Over 30 different countries came forward with their own intel on Iraq's WMD. The UN Security Council unanimously voted over 75 times finding Iraq in violation of the terms of the cease-fire.
In case you forget, the terms of the cease fire authorized military force if Iraq was not COMPLETELY COMPLICIT in the terms. 75 violations is authorization in and of itself. Driving Kurds into the mountains and attempting genocide is authorization in and of itself. Shutting off and food and water to towns while building dozens of personal palaces is authorization in and of itself. The well being of 30 million people is authorization in and of itself. Recent statistics show Baghdad today is safer than Detroit.
Two weeks before we went into Iraq, Bush held a speech saying that we'd go into Iraq in two weeks. Immediately after that, we watched caravans of vehicles leave Baghdad heading for Syria and Colin Powell immediately said that we'd likely never find the huge stockpiles now as they were leaving the country.
Despite that we still found missiles filled with Sarin gas, documentation for WMD, storage facilities for WMD, training manuals for WMD, etc.
Never mind that both parties universally said that Iraq had and pursued WMD for over 11 years. Never mind the entire world said Iraq had WMD.
Clearly, one person made up the story years later, and people believed the lie retroactively before he was in office.
Your logic makes so much more sense, that you were modded up.
I wish I had the answer, but if I were in charge I'd start with medical and psychological studies into pedophilia, and while sex offenders are the group most likely to repeat their crimes once released from prison.
Locally I keep seeing cities passing laws saying sex offenders can't live in their towns. I see sex registry laws that are doubly-unconstitutional (ex post facto and double-jeopardy). The current plan seems to be shoving sex offenders away and pretending like that will solve anything.
Chemical castration has worked in extreme cases, and if there is a medical issue with these offenders (biological or psychological) then you will most likely need to treat that problem. Instead of publicly vilifying these people, encourage them to seek out medical treatment anonymously before they victimize others.
I actually really want an emulator for this as well.
Canada has a huge surpluss of oil and we're not invading them.
Let's play devil's advocate for two seconds.
1 - We haven't financially gained from invading Iraq. Quite the opposite. The war has cost us greatly, and we have no control over Iraqi oil anymore. We help guard it, but we don't own it.
2 - Republicans don't go to war more then Democrats. Both parties voted to go to war. People seem to forget that polls showed that US citizens, as well as many of the world supported going into Iraq immediately after 9/11 on a false premise that Saddam had ties to 9/11. Bush pushed for diplomacy and intel. That intel concluded that Saddam had no ties to 9/11. A warmonger strikes while the iron is hot, not pushes for diplomacy for a few more years.
3 - Clinton while in office bombed 4 different countries without pursuing diplomacy in any of those cases. He didn't ask permission, talk to the UN, consult with allies, or give warnings. He just bombed. The funny thing is that few people argued because it was over so quick, where as a land war is costly and lasts for years.
I really hate the notion that Republicans are more likely to be war-mongers than Democrats, not because I agree with all Republicans, but because the assertion is foolish.
I also really hate the notion that Americans are war-mongers. In almost every use of American forces, they were requested by the UN, and in most cases (embassy evacuations, small peace-keeping missions, etc) the military is used briefly, and without bloodshed. For instance, when troops were issued to Liberia in 2003, they prevented bloodshed, but you don't hear about things like that.
Please, stop ignorant trolling. It isn't funny, and it only spreads FUD.
It is an absolute. Either you have it 100%, or you don't have it at all. And the idiots who think that censorship stops child pornography neither understand pedophiles nor censorship. It is akin to DRM, where you don't stop the problem (pirates/pedophiles/whatever) and instead punish everyone else.
If you're upset by kiddie porn, then treat the problem. Don't shut off the internet.
Rock Band is devoid of gameplay besides allowing you to play song.
Guitar Hero offered a plot, unlocking levels, equipment, characters, etc. The guitar battles are especially nice. Guitar Hero will allow you to co-op the campaign, where as Rock Band will not let you do the World Tour online.
I'd write them repeatedly and beg for a patch.
I'm a huge XKCD fan, but out of these 8 strips, it might be a reach to call 2 funny. I think they both failed.
What I'd have preferred instead of arbitrary subjects that intrinsically aren't funny, is for them to play off each other. One writes a comic of their choosing that fits within their comic idiom. The next plays directly off that comic trying to top if, within their idiom.
The back and forth would likely be much better.
Honestly, I think that is exactly what he was going for, either that or GraphJam. I think he was trying to reach out to the XKCD-type audience.