"Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them."
So what you're saying is that Norway is full of a bunch of fucking morons?
There is nothing noble or admirable in trusting human beings in positions of authority over other human beings. Nothing at all. If the attitude of the people of Norway is as you claim, it is something to be ashamed of.
It's like you're bragging about how good of sheep the people of Norway are.
And the farmer in your quaint little story? We have a term for people like that - its Uncle Tom.
You don't have to agree with a decision to respect it. It's called compromise. There's a difference between respecting and understanding a decision you may not personally agree with vs. blind obedience.
No, the thieves and those who advocate stealing from people who are productive in order to "redistribute the wealth" are the ones who belong in prison.
In all of those other cases there is some type of exchange going on. The issue here is that you have group A producing content and then group B taking that content without compensating A and then using it as the basis for making money.
Who is A and who is B?
I know for a fact that the artists directly supply the lyrics for some songs on some of the lyrics sites I use. Rapgenius.com being one that does a particularly good job of showing this. But the labels have no say in that, so by their logic that's still unlicensed.
Who are you to decide how others should live their lives?
If I decide I'm perfectly happy going home from work every day and smoking pot, why is that a problem that you must "save" me from? Because it doesn't benefit society as a whole? Well, I also enjoy spending hours upon hours writing code that will never be released (because it's custom code on custom hardware that I can't be arsed to generalize) so that's not benefiting society either -- should that be banned too? Should it be illegal for me to build my own tesla coil because I might electrocute myself?
High IQs tend to coincide with mental illness too. Should we be trying to prevent high IQs?
Why should you care how someone else chooses to live their life if they aren't actively harming anyone else?
If you're not, then you don't really need to "curb" it, and the memories of the dipshit things you did will be just as much of a deterrent. In fact, since you'll have a clear head and fully remember all your antics from the night before, the lack of hangover would actually increase the chances you'd think twice before having that last six shots of Tequila.
The memories of those "dipshit things" are the entire reason I drink in the first place! Otherwise I think too much for my own good...
Yeah, because dying a slow death from cancer is so much worse than being shot on a street corner by a black market dealer.
Organized crime damn near disappeared when alcohol prohibition ended. The same would happen today if you ended drug prohibition. Along with several billion dollars of savings to the federal government. So first of all, you're limiting the deaths to people who choose to engage in risky behavior...and secondly, if you run the numbers you'll find that the savings and increased revenue to the government would be enough to send every drug user through fully funded free drug rehab programs -- three or four times each.
Also, as someone from a family with a long history of alcoholism and tobacco use, I'm *very* happy my father was able to go to AA and get sober rather than being thrown in a prison cell for a couple years.
He's been making these same promises since before he was elected. And he keeps finding ways to *increase* prosecution while saying "That's not what I promised" whenever questioned.
no, what we NEED is for the us government to realize how dumb they are being with the 'war on drugs' billions of US tax dollars are wasted yearly on it,
No, sir. What we need is the public who back the politicians who support this stupid war to realize the truth.
Which other politicians are there to back?
There are plenty of other politicians; you just don't generally hear about them because nobody backs them. Personally I voted for Rocky Anderson in the last presidential election...
The minute you declare what political powers "society" will allow for all individuals you become a collectivist and are no friend of individual liberty. Since you don't say these "rights" will be obeyed on an entirely voluntary basis I'm forced to assume you intend to compel those with means to support those without.
And there's still that pesky problem of... where do you ship your drugs to?
The sellers don't give a shit about the address they're sending *to*. On their end they can just toss a package in a corner mailbox with no return address. And the buyers figure the feds only care about the sellers, because who's going to waste time prosecuting some dude for buying a couple hits of acid when they can go for the guy selling and producing a couple hundred? Plus many police departments are funded partially from seized assets. Go for the buyer, you get drugs, and you burn them. Go for the seller and you get drug money, which will pay for your next year-end bonus.
Failures of bitcoins should be a major concern to sellers...along with any failures of Tor...but that's about all. Most buyers don't care even if it's guaranteed that some sellers are honeypots, because they figure the feds won't come after a small-scale buyer.
Buyers are at significantly less risk, but without sellers the site isn't going to function.
Where there is money to be made, there will be people willing to take the risk.
Also worth noting that the buyers seem to be taking a bigger risk. Sellers can get paid in bitcoin and drop the package in a corner mailbox, and should be able to stay fairly anonymous if they do it right. Buyers need to provide an address for delivery.
The Supreme Court would only get involved if someone with standing sued and it got appealed up to that level. The SC isn't going to swoop in and say "sorry, we think this is wrong so we're putting a stop to it" because that's not how our system works.
You think nobody would sue? You think the ACLU or Amnesty International or a dozen other groups wouldn't be all over that?
Likewise Congress isn't about to do anything because they don't care and if they tried the conservative media would whip up the mob with fears about terrorism and Islam and brown people.
They wouldn't have a choice. That's the point.
Lastly even if Obama could unilaterally declare hostilities over as you assert, he's not going to while we've got active fighting in Afghanistan. That'd be stupid.
Yeah, that's exactly my point -- he *could*, but he doesn't actually want to.
You don't match some strings they came up with to a bunch of pictures they came up with. They generate a bunch of pictures, and you create descriptions for them. Then when you try to login they give you a list of your previously entered descriptions with the same pictures and you have to match them up again.
In other words, if you want you could just fill in the passwords as "TOP RIGHT" "BOTTOM LEFT" based on the location of the largest dot, or you could make them all the color of the closest dot to the top right corner, whatever system works for you.
I don't really see the problem this is solving though...
If he declares "hostilities" to be over -- which he can do unilaterally -- then it becomes illegal for them to continue to be held, meaning the funding must be found. If Congress doesn't find it, the Supreme Court will.
Well, I agree with you somewhat. Native apps are always better. But I could see some special cases where this would win. If you need to use someone else's computer and you can't (or don't want to) install a bunch of crap they won't use. Or if you want a platform independent solution -- any OS, tablets, phones, whatever. And corporate admins seem to like keeping stuff network deployed -- pretty much the only software on my work laptop that runs locally is shit I downloaded myself. Everything else goes through Citrix or some VMWare network thing. This would be one less thing you need to install for anyone requiring remote access.
Also multiple steams at once. Not all that uncommon for me to be watching a movie on the projector while coding something on the laptop while keeping Facebook open on my phone. And every once in a while I add one or two additional laptops to the mix for various reasons...
Well, I attended Penn State University. Tuition and fees alone are $9000 per semester. Working minimum wage at 40 hours a week, 52 weeks per year you'd be $3000 short. Eight hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year and...you can pay tuition and 10 months' rent. And you've still got no money for food, bills, textbooks, or anything else.
*Including* grants and scholarships and financial aid, PSU estimates a total cost (including housing and everything) of $24,000 per year. At minimum wage that'd mean working 9 hour days, every day, non-stop, on top of classes and homework. Plenty of people do work multiple jobs, but it's still not enough.
Also, I know a hell of a lot of current students who can't even find a single job, let alone four. The employment market still isn't great if you haven't noticed.
Pretty sure CSU is the cheapest state system in the country, by far. Comp Sci at Penn State University is $9,000 per *semester*, for in-state tuition. $36k if you manage to do it in four years. I barely made four years coming in with 20 credits already, simply because classes weren't available. My ex was in her Junior year when they decided to discontinue her major and she had to practically start over with something different. You can easily break $50k in debt from a public university on tuition alone, just for a Bachelor's degree...if you're going for a field where you need further education beyond that it's not hard to see how someone could be over $100,000 in debt before they finish.
The categories listed seem broad enough to make this pretty simple. Just automate a system to report every grant they issue is for "promotion of scientific progress" and call it a day;)
That just shows that smacking it against the table imparts more force than bending it slowly. If you freeze it it loses flexibility and will shatter with the same force that would just bend it previously. F=ma. If it's flexible, you get a smaller a on impact.
And yeah, in a perfect world, nobody would ever drop or damage anything. But shit happens.
Slashdot Mirror
"Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them."
So what you're saying is that Norway is full of a bunch of fucking morons?
There is nothing noble or admirable in trusting human beings in positions of authority over other human beings. Nothing at all. If the attitude of the people of Norway is as you claim, it is something to be ashamed of.
It's like you're bragging about how good of sheep the people of Norway are.
And the farmer in your quaint little story? We have a term for people like that - its Uncle Tom.
You don't have to agree with a decision to respect it. It's called compromise. There's a difference between respecting and understanding a decision you may not personally agree with vs. blind obedience.
I'd rather just give them the finger openly from the start.
Well said! I personally try to do that -- quite literally -- at every possible opportunity. Second circuit says it's protected speech! :)
No, the thieves and those who advocate stealing from people who are productive in order to "redistribute the wealth" are the ones who belong in prison.
So....politicians and CEOs then, right? :)
In all of those other cases there is some type of exchange going on. The issue here is that you have group A producing content and then group B taking that content without compensating A and then using it as the basis for making money.
Who is A and who is B?
I know for a fact that the artists directly supply the lyrics for some songs on some of the lyrics sites I use. Rapgenius.com being one that does a particularly good job of showing this. But the labels have no say in that, so by their logic that's still unlicensed.
Who are you to decide how others should live their lives?
If I decide I'm perfectly happy going home from work every day and smoking pot, why is that a problem that you must "save" me from? Because it doesn't benefit society as a whole? Well, I also enjoy spending hours upon hours writing code that will never be released (because it's custom code on custom hardware that I can't be arsed to generalize) so that's not benefiting society either -- should that be banned too? Should it be illegal for me to build my own tesla coil because I might electrocute myself?
High IQs tend to coincide with mental illness too. Should we be trying to prevent high IQs?
Why should you care how someone else chooses to live their life if they aren't actively harming anyone else?
If you're not, then you don't really need to "curb" it, and the memories of the dipshit things you did will be just as much of a deterrent. In fact, since you'll have a clear head and fully remember all your antics from the night before, the lack of hangover would actually increase the chances you'd think twice before having that last six shots of Tequila.
The memories of those "dipshit things" are the entire reason I drink in the first place! Otherwise I think too much for my own good...
Yeah, because dying a slow death from cancer is so much worse than being shot on a street corner by a black market dealer.
Organized crime damn near disappeared when alcohol prohibition ended. The same would happen today if you ended drug prohibition. Along with several billion dollars of savings to the federal government. So first of all, you're limiting the deaths to people who choose to engage in risky behavior...and secondly, if you run the numbers you'll find that the savings and increased revenue to the government would be enough to send every drug user through fully funded free drug rehab programs -- three or four times each.
Also, as someone from a family with a long history of alcoholism and tobacco use, I'm *very* happy my father was able to go to AA and get sober rather than being thrown in a prison cell for a couple years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-raids-rolling-stone_n_1451744.html
He's been making these same promises since before he was elected. And he keeps finding ways to *increase* prosecution while saying "That's not what I promised" whenever questioned.
no, what we NEED is for the us government to realize how dumb they are being with the 'war on drugs' billions of US tax dollars are wasted yearly on it,
No, sir. What we need is the public who back the politicians who support this stupid war to realize the truth.
Which other politicians are there to back?
There are plenty of other politicians; you just don't generally hear about them because nobody backs them. Personally I voted for Rocky Anderson in the last presidential election...
The minute you declare what political powers "society" will allow for all individuals you become a collectivist and are no friend of individual liberty. Since you don't say these "rights" will be obeyed on an entirely voluntary basis I'm forced to assume you intend to compel those with means to support those without.
And there's still that pesky problem of... where do you ship your drugs to?
The sellers don't give a shit about the address they're sending *to*. On their end they can just toss a package in a corner mailbox with no return address. And the buyers figure the feds only care about the sellers, because who's going to waste time prosecuting some dude for buying a couple hits of acid when they can go for the guy selling and producing a couple hundred? Plus many police departments are funded partially from seized assets. Go for the buyer, you get drugs, and you burn them. Go for the seller and you get drug money, which will pay for your next year-end bonus.
Failures of bitcoins should be a major concern to sellers...along with any failures of Tor...but that's about all. Most buyers don't care even if it's guaranteed that some sellers are honeypots, because they figure the feds won't come after a small-scale buyer.
Buyers are at significantly less risk, but without sellers the site isn't going to function.
Where there is money to be made, there will be people willing to take the risk.
Also worth noting that the buyers seem to be taking a bigger risk. Sellers can get paid in bitcoin and drop the package in a corner mailbox, and should be able to stay fairly anonymous if they do it right. Buyers need to provide an address for delivery.
The Supreme Court would only get involved if someone with standing sued and it got appealed up to that level. The SC isn't going to swoop in and say "sorry, we think this is wrong so we're putting a stop to it" because that's not how our system works.
You think nobody would sue? You think the ACLU or Amnesty International or a dozen other groups wouldn't be all over that?
Likewise Congress isn't about to do anything because they don't care and if they tried the conservative media would whip up the mob with fears about terrorism and Islam and brown people.
They wouldn't have a choice. That's the point.
Lastly even if Obama could unilaterally declare hostilities over as you assert, he's not going to while we've got active fighting in Afghanistan. That'd be stupid.
Yeah, that's exactly my point -- he *could*, but he doesn't actually want to.
It's not a CAPTCHA, it's a password.
You don't match some strings they came up with to a bunch of pictures they came up with. They generate a bunch of pictures, and you create descriptions for them. Then when you try to login they give you a list of your previously entered descriptions with the same pictures and you have to match them up again.
In other words, if you want you could just fill in the passwords as "TOP RIGHT" "BOTTOM LEFT" based on the location of the largest dot, or you could make them all the color of the closest dot to the top right corner, whatever system works for you.
I don't really see the problem this is solving though...
If he declares "hostilities" to be over -- which he can do unilaterally -- then it becomes illegal for them to continue to be held, meaning the funding must be found. If Congress doesn't find it, the Supreme Court will.
Well, I agree with you somewhat. Native apps are always better. But I could see some special cases where this would win. If you need to use someone else's computer and you can't (or don't want to) install a bunch of crap they won't use. Or if you want a platform independent solution -- any OS, tablets, phones, whatever. And corporate admins seem to like keeping stuff network deployed -- pretty much the only software on my work laptop that runs locally is shit I downloaded myself. Everything else goes through Citrix or some VMWare network thing. This would be one less thing you need to install for anyone requiring remote access.
Hmmm, possibly that, since it can also function as a BluRay player ... at which point how you'd escape the spinning disc thing is a mystery to me.
Clearly, he wants the disc to remain stationary while the console scans it linearly like an ultra high resolution flatbed scanner.
Yea, because it may take four hours and three transfers to get to work by bus, but I'm not losing any time because I can do other things, right?
I've tried to find ways to use mass transit. There simply aren't any.
Also multiple steams at once. Not all that uncommon for me to be watching a movie on the projector while coding something on the laptop while keeping Facebook open on my phone. And every once in a while I add one or two additional laptops to the mix for various reasons...
Gotta do some parallel processing :)
That's his excuse, anyway. But he doesn't actually even need to ask Congress. It can legally be done by executive order alone.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantanamo_whenever_he_wants_to.html
Well, I attended Penn State University. Tuition and fees alone are $9000 per semester. Working minimum wage at 40 hours a week, 52 weeks per year you'd be $3000 short. Eight hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year and...you can pay tuition and 10 months' rent. And you've still got no money for food, bills, textbooks, or anything else.
*Including* grants and scholarships and financial aid, PSU estimates a total cost (including housing and everything) of $24,000 per year. At minimum wage that'd mean working 9 hour days, every day, non-stop, on top of classes and homework. Plenty of people do work multiple jobs, but it's still not enough.
Also, I know a hell of a lot of current students who can't even find a single job, let alone four. The employment market still isn't great if you haven't noticed.
Pretty sure CSU is the cheapest state system in the country, by far. Comp Sci at Penn State University is $9,000 per *semester*, for in-state tuition. $36k if you manage to do it in four years. I barely made four years coming in with 20 credits already, simply because classes weren't available. My ex was in her Junior year when they decided to discontinue her major and she had to practically start over with something different. You can easily break $50k in debt from a public university on tuition alone, just for a Bachelor's degree...if you're going for a field where you need further education beyond that it's not hard to see how someone could be over $100,000 in debt before they finish.
Both of his posts said the same thing, just rephrased. Read more carefully.
The categories listed seem broad enough to make this pretty simple. Just automate a system to report every grant they issue is for "promotion of scientific progress" and call it a day ;)
That just shows that smacking it against the table imparts more force than bending it slowly. If you freeze it it loses flexibility and will shatter with the same force that would just bend it previously. F=ma. If it's flexible, you get a smaller a on impact.
And yeah, in a perfect world, nobody would ever drop or damage anything. But shit happens.