taking out many civilian targets then trying to hide it
What history book have you been reading? The history of war is one of marching all over civilians. What you are supposed to do is walk in and kill every man woman and child so there is no one left to oppose you. So there aren't any children left fatherless to build a grudge of hatred towards your nation. This idea of not killing civilians is a result of the televised news cycle. Hell during WWII the firebombing campaigns in Japan killed 100's of thousands of people, more than the two atomic bombs.
The reason the war is taking so long is because they are at least attempting to not kill civilians. They aren't doing a great job of it, but at least they are trying.
So the problem isn't that we now have a permanent record of what we do, the problem is the "Puritanism" going around. We don't need to build forgetting into the internet, we need to evolve into a more tolerant species. You know the stuff people remember isn't the good job you did on your TPS report, the stuff that already gets remembered is the time you got drunk and the office party and put the lamp shade on your head. There may not be pictures, but everyone at the office already remembers that long after you're gone.
What is wrong with the way that Internet has been run for the last 20 years? Nothing, and when something did go a little awry they got hit with a civil lawsuit and it got fixed real quick. The FCC is the same organization which fines stations for saying words that are deemed inappropriate and finds the showing of skin offensive. What is to stop the FCC from imposing those same standards on the Internet? So the FCC gives us net neutrality, but at the same time starts censoring the web the same way it does public airwaves. Is that really what you want?
That is what I've been voting for lately, however the party platform doesn't believe in any social safety net. Is for the gold standard, where a fiat system works just fine. So the pure libertarians are just as wacko as pure democrats and pure republicans. Really if you want to take the best parts of each party and work with that you get mocked by all parties. All three have good ideas, but are to blind to see the benefits each other bring to the table.
Ever wonder why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the feds can ban any old drug they feel like without even a vote of the legislative branch nowadays?
Actually it took two. First they had to allow the income tax, then they could ban alcohol. Taxes on alcohol pretty much paid for government.
On the birth thing, I just remember getting one of those stupid chain emails and I could see how people would get hooked, that was the only credible argument in the thing. I like to put myself in other peoples shoes before passing judgment. But like I said I didn't care either way, to me it was a non-issue.
The earliest TEA party stuff I remember came from Ron Paul and was coming from the campaign for liberty site. It was fair tax stuff and then got mainstream attention and got picked up by people like Sarah Palin and morphed into this ultra conservative mob that it is now.
As for being closer to the Democrats, I may be a little left leaning, but I could never call myself a Democrat, just like I can't call myself a Republican. The Democrats want to much to take care of everyone, I don't have a problem with basic survival care like in the form of soup lines, but I do have a problem with perpetual unemployment checks. I believe in the free market, with a safety net. The minimal safety net possible; the problem I get from my libertarian friends is they believe the that net will always grow and you'll end up going all the way to the left. That is why I can't fit in with the Libertarians either, you do need regulation because people are evil and game a totally free market system.
Basically I believe that the politicians have won by polarizing every issue. Both side are correct on many issues and much of what we need is a compromise from both sides taking what works from both parties and combining it into something better than what we have. The problem is that everything has to be black and white and is completely polarized leaving no room for grey ideas. Single payer health care for things like vacinations, but free market health care for things like distaster care insurance? A completely public system with a completely private system on top of it? Not going to happen both sides have polarized the issue to where for the left it is single payer or nothing and the right has it free market or nothing and they just flop control back and forth and everyone in the middle gets screwed.
I was happy with the Republican's being the party of no because it slowed down legislation, which to me is a good thing. The news has been saying how good it is that congress has been passing so much legislation this session. To me that is a bad thing, there needs to be much more thinking and debate about laws and less actual writing of laws. Congress was designed to be slow because passing knee jerk legislation has consequences.
To be fair, anyone educated in the last 50 years has been indoctrinated with some form of socialism; but not only does Obama have a lot of socialist views so do most of the far right bashing him for those views. The 'secret Muslim' conspiracy is wacko and wouldn't matter even if it was true.
Ok, for the birth-ers you're gonna have to bear with me a second. I don't buy it, nor do I think it would matter even if it was true. The claim was that he wasn't born in the US, lets say they are right, his mother was still a US citizen so he would still be able to claim us citizenship from birth anyway. They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was. And at this point if it became that big a deal (which apparently it did) who is to say that he couldn't forge the document? But like I said it doesn't matter he was sworn in and it wouldn't change anything. About the only thing that would happen if it was true is that it would allow Arnold a presidential bid. So, does it deserve mocking? It was important enough to be in the constitution, but they should have dropped it as soon as he was sworn in.
Did anyone actually think there would be "death panels" in the health care bill? From what I got from all the news coverage about death panels it just seemed like people were saying this bill could lead to it. They were following the slippery slope to its soylent green conclusion. I believe the actual argument for death panels went more like: The new health care bill will raise health care costs to the government, which will in turn cause the government to first cut "unnecessary" services to health care, which some group will need to decide what will be cut, which at some later time maybe 20 years from now will require cuts to elderly care, which at some point became 'death panels'; but I don't think anyone honestly thought that the bill in its current form was going to have death panels in them. If people actually believed that, then maybe they do deserve mocking; to me I thought it was just hyperbole.
As for the TEA party, the neocons in there are messing the hole thing up. The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility. Lower taxes and reduce spending. Anything beyond that doesn't belong in the TEA party. It makes it hard for the people in the middle to associate with the TEA party when they start taking on social issues. Sarah Palin is ripe for mockery and her support of the TEA party actual keeps a lot of people from the middle and left out of the party. If you want social conservatism join the GOP, if you just want the fiscal conservatism but not the social bigotry that is where the TEA party got its initial push. It really sucks that the neocons took it over.
Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?
I don't know any of my passwords. I have an encrypted password application that generates the passwords for me. I have to do this because I'm expected to know a couple hundred different passwords, that isn't going to happen. I have a couple of different accounts for the password application and decently secure passwords for each of those accounts. Once inside the application I have about 50 to 100 passwords per account all generated by the application. If I don't have access to the password app, then I can't get in to the systems.
1. I expected to see the images in question when clicking the link in the FA.
2. 24 years is a little excessive for fraud. Make the guy repay his debts and some. I guess people think that as long as we aren't executing people we are being humane in the care of criminals. Have you ever thought about what it would be like to be stuck in jail for that period of time?
Thank Metalica, not the lawyers. The lawyers are there because someone lobbied a politician to make a law that someone else disagrees with. The lawyers are there to defend you (for a price) from the idiot that made a law. Who was going to get Lars' money from you dirty pirate? Well they got a lawyer to do it, but you didn't do it, so you get a lawyer to defend you. So the lawyer isn't the problem, Lars is the problem.
Look, It is the year 2010 we have these things called "links" and this great website called "youtube" and all these Monty Python skits available there. I know there is a resource called "Google" that can help us find your funny joke, but it would have been nice had you "linked" to it. So I'll do it for you:
Why not put several large chunks of Silly Putty in space to sweep up the space debris? You could even put it in orbit in front of the object you wish to protect and then track the silly putty, since as things impact it its trajectory would change.
The second one wasn't that bad, but it was more of an action flick. Had it not followed the first Matrix movie I think people would have liked it. Had it been called something like Vampire Hunter NEO it would have been a great movie. Don't even remember the third.
That assumes users are idiots and don't take into account the health effects of real drugs. There are no consequences (other than opportunity costs) for liking Dr. Horrible and then finding Firefly. There are consequences for liking the effects of consuming a mind altering substance and then trying something stronger; i.e. death. So the idea of a gateway "drug" is still bogus. What you are describing is advertising and is not the same thing. Awareness != consumption.
that said, the idea that they could work as a gateway to drugs isn't TECHNICALLY without merit
It is 100% without merit. The idea of gateway anything is just a theory for starters and one based on the logical fallacy slippery slope. Not only that it is dependent on the correlation causation fallacy as well. So yes, it is 100% without merit.
Peter Jenner has one thing right: the general public doesn't understand why they can have a song on their ipod and why they can't just copy the file to their friends ipod. What is wrong about that? The only thing wrong is that someone said it was illegal.
Now if that same person has a band t-shirt they would then have to give up their band t-shirt to give it to their friend. That is where there is value that can be controlled by distributors. The artists will not starve, they will make their money on merchandising and live performances. They need to give up on making money on bits. They should be using bits to advertise their merchandise and live events - things that can be monetized.
Now lets say that Apple uses a song from a band without their permission to promote their products? That is a valid use of copyright law, the business is profiting off of the endorsement of the artist without the artists permission. A consumer spreading the works of the artists does nothing but improve the popularity of the artist, a business associating themselves with an artist has the potential to tarnish the artists reputation hence the need for them to be able to sue that company. Imagine if BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it puts Bono in a bad light.
The problem with stopping file sharing is how it limits communication. If you are speaking about a piece of music, a movie, a book, or news article is that we now have the ability to perfectly convey what part we are talking about. We just link to it. It is a great way to enhance communication and should be encouraged. If IP law is changed it needs to allow for this type of communication. Viral spreading of information should be encouraged, even if torrent sights like bit torrent are condemned (one is organic spreading of information, another is centralized distribution for monetary gain). Basically if you are making money off of someone else they are owed compensation, if however you are just spreading information all you are doing is advertising for them for free.
For something like an OS, or Office software, the software could be free and all income from the software could come from training and support. Yeah the company won't become a 250 billion dollar giant like microsoft or apple, but do we really need to be aggregating funds into a few companies. I don't think those companies would be in bad shape if they were just a 5-10 billion dollar company. That is 240 billion that could be going into making actual goods. It could be used to build housing, hiring employees, buying cars, etc. Hell everyone could donate all that extra money to the space program and we could build a public hotel on the moon. It is just a horrible waist of funds to drop $300 on a piece of software that 6 billion people use (I'm thinking windows on the majority of consumer desktops - they make enough funds off of businesses that it should be free to consumers). Yes I know I've been smoking the Utopian cool aid, but at no point in history has humanity been able to give something to every person on the planet. We can't do it with food, clothing, shelter, but we can do it with digital information. Yes there is money to be made on it, but it shouldn't be criminal to share information and it definitely isn't immoral.
Flaimbait? I was going for funny... jeeze my humor doesn't go over well. Make a joke about conspiracy's and people think you're serious. Just goes to show how believable something like that may actually be...
Almost, they could have registered it weeks, months or even years earlier. You would need to see if it had X days of activity. I don't know how you would do that.
Also, does anyone remember the timing on this? All this news happened when Toyota was passing GM as the largest car company in the world. Oh and there were these things called bail outs happening at the time AND the government just bought something like 60% of GM's stock. The entire thing seemed dirty to me right from the start. Some conspiracy theories are just too easy to come up with.
Even as some projects choose to go green, other data center operators insist that improved power efficiency offers a far better return and carbon impact that pursuing on-site renewables.
Why is it that everything must be polarized. Why aren't we doing both? Both are good and they are not exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
taking out many civilian targets then trying to hide it
What history book have you been reading? The history of war is one of marching all over civilians. What you are supposed to do is walk in and kill every man woman and child so there is no one left to oppose you. So there aren't any children left fatherless to build a grudge of hatred towards your nation. This idea of not killing civilians is a result of the televised news cycle. Hell during WWII the firebombing campaigns in Japan killed 100's of thousands of people, more than the two atomic bombs.
The reason the war is taking so long is because they are at least attempting to not kill civilians. They aren't doing a great job of it, but at least they are trying.
So the problem isn't that we now have a permanent record of what we do, the problem is the "Puritanism" going around. We don't need to build forgetting into the internet, we need to evolve into a more tolerant species. You know the stuff people remember isn't the good job you did on your TPS report, the stuff that already gets remembered is the time you got drunk and the office party and put the lamp shade on your head. There may not be pictures, but everyone at the office already remembers that long after you're gone.
What is wrong with the way that Internet has been run for the last 20 years? Nothing, and when something did go a little awry they got hit with a civil lawsuit and it got fixed real quick. The FCC is the same organization which fines stations for saying words that are deemed inappropriate and finds the showing of skin offensive. What is to stop the FCC from imposing those same standards on the Internet? So the FCC gives us net neutrality, but at the same time starts censoring the web the same way it does public airwaves. Is that really what you want?
That is what I've been voting for lately, however the party platform doesn't believe in any social safety net. Is for the gold standard, where a fiat system works just fine. So the pure libertarians are just as wacko as pure democrats and pure republicans. Really if you want to take the best parts of each party and work with that you get mocked by all parties. All three have good ideas, but are to blind to see the benefits each other bring to the table.
Ever wonder why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the feds can ban any old drug they feel like without even a vote of the legislative branch nowadays?
Actually it took two. First they had to allow the income tax, then they could ban alcohol. Taxes on alcohol pretty much paid for government.
Thanks for the tip! Now I know to have clean room filtered grow houses!
On the birth thing, I just remember getting one of those stupid chain emails and I could see how people would get hooked, that was the only credible argument in the thing. I like to put myself in other peoples shoes before passing judgment. But like I said I didn't care either way, to me it was a non-issue.
The earliest TEA party stuff I remember came from Ron Paul and was coming from the campaign for liberty site. It was fair tax stuff and then got mainstream attention and got picked up by people like Sarah Palin and morphed into this ultra conservative mob that it is now.
As for being closer to the Democrats, I may be a little left leaning, but I could never call myself a Democrat, just like I can't call myself a Republican. The Democrats want to much to take care of everyone, I don't have a problem with basic survival care like in the form of soup lines, but I do have a problem with perpetual unemployment checks. I believe in the free market, with a safety net. The minimal safety net possible; the problem I get from my libertarian friends is they believe the that net will always grow and you'll end up going all the way to the left. That is why I can't fit in with the Libertarians either, you do need regulation because people are evil and game a totally free market system.
Basically I believe that the politicians have won by polarizing every issue. Both side are correct on many issues and much of what we need is a compromise from both sides taking what works from both parties and combining it into something better than what we have. The problem is that everything has to be black and white and is completely polarized leaving no room for grey ideas. Single payer health care for things like vacinations, but free market health care for things like distaster care insurance? A completely public system with a completely private system on top of it? Not going to happen both sides have polarized the issue to where for the left it is single payer or nothing and the right has it free market or nothing and they just flop control back and forth and everyone in the middle gets screwed.
I was happy with the Republican's being the party of no because it slowed down legislation, which to me is a good thing. The news has been saying how good it is that congress has been passing so much legislation this session. To me that is a bad thing, there needs to be much more thinking and debate about laws and less actual writing of laws. Congress was designed to be slow because passing knee jerk legislation has consequences.
To be fair, anyone educated in the last 50 years has been indoctrinated with some form of socialism; but not only does Obama have a lot of socialist views so do most of the far right bashing him for those views. The 'secret Muslim' conspiracy is wacko and wouldn't matter even if it was true.
Ok, for the birth-ers you're gonna have to bear with me a second. I don't buy it, nor do I think it would matter even if it was true. The claim was that he wasn't born in the US, lets say they are right, his mother was still a US citizen so he would still be able to claim us citizenship from birth anyway. They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was. And at this point if it became that big a deal (which apparently it did) who is to say that he couldn't forge the document? But like I said it doesn't matter he was sworn in and it wouldn't change anything. About the only thing that would happen if it was true is that it would allow Arnold a presidential bid. So, does it deserve mocking? It was important enough to be in the constitution, but they should have dropped it as soon as he was sworn in.
Did anyone actually think there would be "death panels" in the health care bill? From what I got from all the news coverage about death panels it just seemed like people were saying this bill could lead to it. They were following the slippery slope to its soylent green conclusion. I believe the actual argument for death panels went more like: The new health care bill will raise health care costs to the government, which will in turn cause the government to first cut "unnecessary" services to health care, which some group will need to decide what will be cut, which at some later time maybe 20 years from now will require cuts to elderly care, which at some point became 'death panels'; but I don't think anyone honestly thought that the bill in its current form was going to have death panels in them. If people actually believed that, then maybe they do deserve mocking; to me I thought it was just hyperbole.
As for the TEA party, the neocons in there are messing the hole thing up. The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility. Lower taxes and reduce spending. Anything beyond that doesn't belong in the TEA party. It makes it hard for the people in the middle to associate with the TEA party when they start taking on social issues. Sarah Palin is ripe for mockery and her support of the TEA party actual keeps a lot of people from the middle and left out of the party. If you want social conservatism join the GOP, if you just want the fiscal conservatism but not the social bigotry that is where the TEA party got its initial push. It really sucks that the neocons took it over.
Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?
That wasn't punny...
What about flywheels? Couldn't they be built into wind turbines or even built into the base of each tower?
I don't know any of my passwords. I have an encrypted password application that generates the passwords for me. I have to do this because I'm expected to know a couple hundred different passwords, that isn't going to happen. I have a couple of different accounts for the password application and decently secure passwords for each of those accounts. Once inside the application I have about 50 to 100 passwords per account all generated by the application. If I don't have access to the password app, then I can't get in to the systems.
1. I expected to see the images in question when clicking the link in the FA.
2. 24 years is a little excessive for fraud. Make the guy repay his debts and some. I guess people think that as long as we aren't executing people we are being humane in the care of criminals. Have you ever thought about what it would be like to be stuck in jail for that period of time?
Thank Metalica, not the lawyers. The lawyers are there because someone lobbied a politician to make a law that someone else disagrees with. The lawyers are there to defend you (for a price) from the idiot that made a law. Who was going to get Lars' money from you dirty pirate? Well they got a lawyer to do it, but you didn't do it, so you get a lawyer to defend you. So the lawyer isn't the problem, Lars is the problem.
Look, It is the year 2010 we have these things called "links" and this great website called "youtube" and all these Monty Python skits available there. I know there is a resource called "Google" that can help us find your funny joke, but it would have been nice had you "linked" to it. So I'll do it for you:
(With apologies to Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen sketch)
Why not put several large chunks of Silly Putty in space to sweep up the space debris? You could even put it in orbit in front of the object you wish to protect and then track the silly putty, since as things impact it its trajectory would change.
The second one wasn't that bad, but it was more of an action flick. Had it not followed the first Matrix movie I think people would have liked it. Had it been called something like Vampire Hunter NEO it would have been a great movie. Don't even remember the third.
That assumes users are idiots and don't take into account the health effects of real drugs. There are no consequences (other than opportunity costs) for liking Dr. Horrible and then finding Firefly. There are consequences for liking the effects of consuming a mind altering substance and then trying something stronger; i.e. death. So the idea of a gateway "drug" is still bogus. What you are describing is advertising and is not the same thing. Awareness != consumption.
that said, the idea that they could work as a gateway to drugs isn't TECHNICALLY without merit
It is 100% without merit. The idea of gateway anything is just a theory for starters and one based on the logical fallacy slippery slope. Not only that it is dependent on the correlation causation fallacy as well. So yes, it is 100% without merit.
They are almost always green. Must be the nice weather, beaches, and a getting to see people in swim suits all day.
Peter Jenner has one thing right: the general public doesn't understand why they can have a song on their ipod and why they can't just copy the file to their friends ipod. What is wrong about that? The only thing wrong is that someone said it was illegal.
Now if that same person has a band t-shirt they would then have to give up their band t-shirt to give it to their friend. That is where there is value that can be controlled by distributors. The artists will not starve, they will make their money on merchandising and live performances. They need to give up on making money on bits. They should be using bits to advertise their merchandise and live events - things that can be monetized.
Now lets say that Apple uses a song from a band without their permission to promote their products? That is a valid use of copyright law, the business is profiting off of the endorsement of the artist without the artists permission. A consumer spreading the works of the artists does nothing but improve the popularity of the artist, a business associating themselves with an artist has the potential to tarnish the artists reputation hence the need for them to be able to sue that company. Imagine if BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it puts Bono in a bad light.
The problem with stopping file sharing is how it limits communication. If you are speaking about a piece of music, a movie, a book, or news article is that we now have the ability to perfectly convey what part we are talking about. We just link to it. It is a great way to enhance communication and should be encouraged. If IP law is changed it needs to allow for this type of communication. Viral spreading of information should be encouraged, even if torrent sights like bit torrent are condemned (one is organic spreading of information, another is centralized distribution for monetary gain). Basically if you are making money off of someone else they are owed compensation, if however you are just spreading information all you are doing is advertising for them for free.
For something like an OS, or Office software, the software could be free and all income from the software could come from training and support. Yeah the company won't become a 250 billion dollar giant like microsoft or apple, but do we really need to be aggregating funds into a few companies. I don't think those companies would be in bad shape if they were just a 5-10 billion dollar company. That is 240 billion that could be going into making actual goods. It could be used to build housing, hiring employees, buying cars, etc. Hell everyone could donate all that extra money to the space program and we could build a public hotel on the moon. It is just a horrible waist of funds to drop $300 on a piece of software that 6 billion people use (I'm thinking windows on the majority of consumer desktops - they make enough funds off of businesses that it should be free to consumers). Yes I know I've been smoking the Utopian cool aid, but at no point in history has humanity been able to give something to every person on the planet. We can't do it with food, clothing, shelter, but we can do it with digital information. Yes there is money to be made on it, but it shouldn't be criminal to share information and it definitely isn't immoral.
Flaimbait? I was going for funny... jeeze my humor doesn't go over well. Make a joke about conspiracy's and people think you're serious. Just goes to show how believable something like that may actually be...
Almost, they could have registered it weeks, months or even years earlier. You would need to see if it had X days of activity. I don't know how you would do that.
Also, does anyone remember the timing on this? All this news happened when Toyota was passing GM as the largest car company in the world. Oh and there were these things called bail outs happening at the time AND the government just bought something like 60% of GM's stock. The entire thing seemed dirty to me right from the start. Some conspiracy theories are just too easy to come up with.
Even as some projects choose to go green, other data center operators insist that improved power efficiency offers a far better return and carbon impact that pursuing on-site renewables.
Why is it that everything must be polarized. Why aren't we doing both? Both are good and they are not exclusive.
The music is just an advertisement for concerts and merchandise. I don't know why they expect us to pay for it.