Only Americans, once the land of the free protected by their constitutional rights, are now willing slaves to corporatism. The rest of the world does not suffer CEO's who get paid 800% of what their employees do. The rest of the world does not allow EULAs and such to override constitutional rights.
You have guns. They have professional killers with precision attack drones.
When the professional killers have to employ their precision attack drones against a crowd that has their parents, spouses, siblings and/or children in it, they will think twice.
The possibility of armed revolution just isn't realistic any more. It'd need overwhelming public support, and that isn't coming in the age of television.
I'm still waiting for them to fix bug 490122. Opened over 2.5 years ago, 296 comments. Not to mention bug 484964, also over 2.5 years old, recently marked as a duplicate of the above.
I believe that pages with lots of images or thumbnails (in particular Google image search et al.) exacerbate the problem. Add AutoPager to the mix and you got yourself a memory hog that:
1) Pauses every 10 seconds or so for about a second (or even more), affecting videos, typing, everything... and, more importantly, uses 100% CPU so it impacts other programs as well. I have to close it in order to watch a video.
2) Eventually exhausts memory and hangs forever at 100% CPU usage.
Seriously, it's like a car engine that keeps overheating while the mechanics are concerned with the equalizer controls on the sound system.
I'd actually want to see a very clear causal link between longer yellows and safety increases, because my gut tells me longer yellows would make people ignore them even more.
Made even easier by having "moral" mean "whatever I want it to mean". Until a moral code is defined, or accepted, any given person is completely amoral.
What's yours?
Since my interest in morality is practical rather than philosophical or academic, I have never bothered with a strict definition. My rule of thumb whether to consider an action as moral or immoral is completely subjective and loosely based on various variations of the "golden rule" -- would I prefer to live in a society where such actions are widely considered as moral?
Based on the above, I have strong aversion to, among other things, corruption, abuse of power, SLAPPs, double/triple-digit copyright terms and organized religions (cults of personality included).
Now, what is yours?
BTW, it is precisely the uncertainty of faith that invalidates your argument. If one -knew- that they were going to receive a reward, that would be a different context--though, of course, your notion that you know this is the primary motivation is just an exercise in your apparent personal psychic powers to determine that one possible motivation within the religion is the exclusive one in mind by all the followers of it.
I urge you to re-read my post and pay attention to what I actually said (and, in particular, to what I did not say but you inferred).
Well, only so much. For example, police brutality at Occupy protests was documented by multiple angles every time, because most everybody has a camera phone. How can an authoritarian PD wiggle out of that?
They don't need to wiggle out of it, they can just ignore it, like the NYPD did.
"one should try to enjoy real life. " but rational argument is that you also enjoy it for a long time. One would think that atheist would tend to maximize the total amount of joy which involves intensity of pleasures AND how long it lasts.
An atheist, in the strictest literal sense, is someone "without religion". That said, most people (atheists included) do not define themselves by any single thing that they lack. It's like trying to generalize about non-bodybuilders, non-plumbers or non-trekkies.
This question is asking if religious persons are morally superior to non-religious persons. I have often heard that claim but I don't believe it is true
There is a strong argument to the opposite -- a person that performs moral acts out of fear of personal punishment (hell) or expecting a personal reward (heaven) is morally inferior.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but come on. There obviously have existed atheists who wanted to attack religious freedoms. Consider what the Maoist regime did to the Buddhists in Tibet.
Well in all fairness VS 2010 is next to worthless for C++ development due to the absent Intellisense--it didn't fit within the release schedule. So really they're only behind by one major version. Either way, regardless of which version of VS they use they'll still be dealing with a 4GB wall since Microsoft has never released a 64bit version. I don't think the Firefox team has much choice but to restructure their projects because they simply cannot move the goalposts far enough down field.
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - Denis Diderot
The trouble is the ones doing the most strangling are usually the next king or priest.
And that is exactly the problem. People that call for reforms, etc. rarely consider the fact that the actual reformers often either have ulterior motives or leave a power vacuum.
I hope you do understand that such large scale disenfranchising can only work in a dictatorship. Because if such an option existed in a democratic regime, 3/4 of your population will vote to remove your voting rights.
I'm not arguing that he isn't. I'm arguing that UMG still shouldn't be allowed to use illegal means to harass him, something that you're trying very hard to ignore.
You keep using the word "illegal". If you check the relevant laws, you will find out that they were carefully worded as to allow such abuse.
If he paid for the artists to perform, the music and lyrics are completely new and not copied from some previous song, then yes, it is illegal as UMG doesn't own the copyrights to them. You may see illegal DMCA-takedown requests as "business as usual", but that doesn't make it right.
My point here is that the only one so far stating it was illegal is Kim, a known embezzler, and criminal, but is it truly illegal? If so why should I care if "megaupload" or their "video" goes offline it's a non-issue to me
I am pretty sure that there are some things in your life that you prefer not to maintain yourself but delegate to professionals. Does it mean that you are "completely, utterly, stupid"?
Slashdot Mirror
Next time, consider the movie to be very loosely based on the events in the book and watch it for it's own sake.
It's illegal in Canada, too.
Only Americans, once the land of the free protected by their constitutional rights, are now willing slaves to corporatism. The rest of the world does not suffer CEO's who get paid 800% of what their employees do. The rest of the world does not allow EULAs and such to override constitutional rights.
We're getting there too, give us time...
Sincerely,
A disillusioned Canadian.
You have guns. They have professional killers with precision attack drones.
When the professional killers have to employ their precision attack drones against a crowd that has their parents, spouses, siblings and/or children in it, they will think twice.
The possibility of armed revolution just isn't realistic any more. It'd need overwhelming public support, and that isn't coming in the age of television.
Unfortunately, I can't argue with that.
Apple has to sue them and protect their IP.
What IP?
> nslookup apple.com
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: apple.com
Addresses: 17.149.160.49, 17.172.224.47
[...] and profit can never justify being evil.
Yet somehow it always does.
bug 490122. Opened over 2.5 years ago, 296 comments.
bug 484964, also over 2.5 years old, recently marked as a duplicate of the above.
Forgot to mention: both bugs "Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it"
I'm still waiting for them to fix bug 490122. Opened over 2.5 years ago, 296 comments.
Not to mention bug 484964, also over 2.5 years old, recently marked as a duplicate of the above.
I believe that pages with lots of images or thumbnails (in particular Google image search et al.) exacerbate the problem.
Add AutoPager to the mix and you got yourself a memory hog that:
1) Pauses every 10 seconds or so for about a second (or even more), affecting videos, typing, everything...
and, more importantly, uses 100% CPU so it impacts other programs as well. I have to close it in order to watch a video.
2) Eventually exhausts memory and hangs forever at 100% CPU usage.
Seriously, it's like a car engine that keeps overheating while the mechanics are concerned with the equalizer controls on the sound system.
I'd actually want to see a very clear causal link between longer yellows and safety increases, because my gut tells me longer yellows would make people ignore them even more.
For the Google-challenged:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2887.asp
You can find more.
Notice how no one went to jail for any of that. It's almost as if corruption were permitted in the US.
Corruption is not permitted in the US. It is encouraged.
> An atheist, in the strictest literal sense, is someone "without religion"
Uh, there are a few million non-theistic Buddhists at the door who would like a word with you...
OK, "without (a belief in) god" would be more correct". Doesn't invalidate my point though.
Made even easier by having "moral" mean "whatever I want it to mean". Until a moral code is defined, or accepted, any given person is completely amoral.
What's yours?
Since my interest in morality is practical rather than philosophical or academic, I have never bothered with a strict definition. My rule of thumb whether to consider an action as moral or immoral is completely subjective and loosely based on various variations of the "golden rule" -- would I prefer to live in a society where such actions are widely considered as moral?
Based on the above, I have strong aversion to, among other things, corruption, abuse of power, SLAPPs, double/triple-digit copyright terms and organized religions (cults of personality included).
Now, what is yours?
BTW, it is precisely the uncertainty of faith that invalidates your argument. If one -knew- that they were going to receive a reward, that would be a different context--though, of course, your notion that you know this is the primary motivation is just an exercise in your apparent personal psychic powers to determine that one possible motivation within the religion is the exclusive one in mind by all the followers of it.
I urge you to re-read my post and pay attention to what I actually said (and, in particular, to what I did not say but you inferred).
Well, only so much. For example, police brutality at Occupy protests was documented by multiple angles every time, because most everybody has a camera phone. How can an authoritarian PD wiggle out of that?
They don't need to wiggle out of it, they can just ignore it, like the NYPD did.
"one should try to enjoy real life. " but rational argument is that you also enjoy it for a long time. One would think that atheist would tend to maximize the total amount of joy which involves intensity of pleasures AND how long it lasts.
An atheist, in the strictest literal sense, is someone "without religion". That said, most people (atheists included) do not define themselves by any single thing that they lack. It's like trying to generalize about non-bodybuilders, non-plumbers or non-trekkies.
This question is asking if religious persons are morally superior to non-religious persons. I have often heard that claim but I don't believe it is true
There is a strong argument to the opposite -- a person that performs moral acts out of fear of personal punishment (hell) or expecting a personal reward (heaven) is morally inferior.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but come on. There obviously have existed atheists who wanted to attack religious freedoms. Consider what the Maoist regime did to the Buddhists in Tibet.
It was not about the Buddhists, but about Tibet.
Take some card board or paper and make a sign that says something like "Jim, Just throw this laptop out the motherboard is shot".
Or the equivalent but more succinct "It's dead, Jim".
Well in all fairness VS 2010 is next to worthless for C++ development due to the absent Intellisense--it didn't fit within the release schedule. So really they're only behind by one major version. Either way, regardless of which version of VS they use they'll still be dealing with a 4GB wall since Microsoft has never released a 64bit version. I don't think the Firefox team has much choice but to restructure their projects because they simply cannot move the goalposts far enough down field.
Two words for you: Visual Assist.
Stallman is an Idiot.
You can call him a prophet when I get arrested for running the OS of my choice.
Don't you think it will be too late then?
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - Denis Diderot
The trouble is the ones doing the most strangling are usually the next king or priest.
And that is exactly the problem. People that call for reforms, etc. rarely consider the fact that the actual reformers often either have ulterior motives or leave a power vacuum.
I hope you do understand that such large scale disenfranchising can only work in a dictatorship.
Because if such an option existed in a democratic regime, 3/4 of your population will vote to remove your voting rights.
I'm not arguing that he isn't. I'm arguing that UMG still shouldn't be allowed to use illegal means to harass him, something that you're trying very hard to ignore.
You keep using the word "illegal". If you check the relevant laws, you will find out that they were carefully worded as to allow such abuse.
If he paid for the artists to perform, the music and lyrics are completely new and not copied from some previous song, then yes, it is illegal as UMG doesn't own the copyrights to them. You may see illegal DMCA-takedown requests as "business as usual", but that doesn't make it right.
My point here is that the only one so far stating it was illegal is Kim, a known embezzler, and criminal, but is it truly illegal? If so why should I care if "megaupload" or their "video" goes offline it's a non-issue to me
Ask Martin Niemöller why you should care.
Google is (or should be) your friend.
A little off topic but should be stated:
While Google can be very useful, it is definitely not your friend.
I am pretty sure that there are some things in your life that you prefer not to maintain yourself but delegate to professionals.
Does it mean that you are "completely, utterly, stupid"?
Or if PIPA or SPA were law, he could have tried to seize the domain "download.com"
The notion that the same laws apply to both the lords and the serfs is quaint but misguided.