There's a massive difference between the US asking Canada to acquire and share data relating to a crime in Canada, and the US forcing companies to break Canadian law to gain access to data relating to activities that may be perfectly legal in Canada.
One of those approaches respects the sovereignty of other nations and is ethically sound.
The other appears to be the preferred approach of the US.
I'm sorry, but who gives a fuck what the ITU have to say about DPI?
If I invent a new network protocol and people start using it, it gets used. I don't need the ITU to go "Ooh, that's nice. Everybody use Cederic's lovely new protocol"
The ITU didn't design, implement, promote and create a worldwide network based on TCP/IP. It managed perfectly well without them, and its replacement can too.
Let them make up their own little rules. The Internet grew without them, and a new network (with interoperability no less) can too.
Unlikely, the IWF aren't responsible for blocking The Pirate Bay either.
Given the different IP addresses for Pirate vs Promo bays, it does look as dodgy as shit. I may invest a few minutes of my time tomorrow to ask them which court order has mandated a block.
I don't deny the issues. I generally take a measured and considered response to them.
Turning "to their faith" is frankly lazy and susceptible to both corruption and malign influence. See also: Every monotheistic religion of the past 2000 years.
Anyway, faith in what exactly? Faith in some bloke in Rome that was a member of the Hitler Youth? Faith in some dead wife beater? Faith in some sky fairy that allowed the holocaust?
Major religious leaders support subjugation of women. Major religious leaders think abortion is wrong. Shit, the idiot in Rome thinks contraception is wrong.
These are perfectly valid views. I'm happy for people to hold them, although I don't support them enacting the subjugation one. What's very very fucking wrong - and still, I don't need religion to tell me this - is imposing those beliefs on others.
Then I can not help you, for my proposed approach does indeed increase the purchasing power of people's money.
Well, technically it doesn't as the same level of wealth before and after buys the same amount of bread. However the number on the price tag has gone down, which is what you asked for.
Perhaps if you intended to ask for something else you could both clarify, and explain why my suggestion is inadequate.
No shit. You then replace the existing currency with the new one, rename (if wanted) the new one to match the name of the existing one et voila: Dollars now worth less than they used to be. No reduction in real debt. No loss of real wealth.
Actually no. Just declare that "new dollars" are worth half of dollars, design and print new notes, design and mint new coins, and give people time to exchange their old currency.
It's very possible and very easy. See also: Large economies in Europe switching to the Euro.
If I tell you that I like the color blue, there is no way you can challenge that on scientific grounds. You either have to believe that I tell you the truth or disbelieve.
Step 1: show you multiple light sources restricted to narrow bands of wavelength. Ask you which ones are blue and make you happy. This will confirm your interpretation of "blue". Step 2: calibrate measurement tools (lie detector, various neuroimaging approaches, observation of microexpressions, measurement of facial muscles, sexual arousal, etc) Step 3: use the tools to test your response to multiple light sources of various colours, and/or various objects of various colours Step 4: assess whether the hypothesis "granspassalan likes the colour blue" holds up to scientific investigation.
Note that step 3 could be improved through use of one or more control subjects.
Sure, there are certain flaws in the above process, but the method can be refined and improved. But yes, I can challenge your assertion on scientific grounds.
What if Google used the justification that a publisher had demanded removal of excerpts, so Google has responded by removing those excerpts and corresponding links from all *.google.de sites?
If you can't link a sentence without paying for it, then you can't include it in search results either.
Look, we're talking about an individual choosing to declare war on a country. They're equally capable of creating a new legal system that happens to include a new definition of 'war'.
I don't know about you, but I'm thinking this conversation would be better over a few beers and a good burger.
This is a big part of the problem. Israel keeps building settlements on that land, using up one of the few natural resources (i.e. arable land) at the same time.
I only know people are Jewish if they tell me, or if they're wearing some obscure clothing - and even then, I don't know if it's a racial thing or a religious one.
I don't treat them differently anyway. And the ones I know don't seem to treat me differently either. (Some variance around religious rituals, but you get that stupidity in all races).
I've been asked if I'm Jewish, asked if I speak Hebrew and had someone tease a girlfriend about me in Hebrew. But I've also been asked if I'm French and been teased in German; that's the joy of a multicultural world.
you *cant* understand.
Can't understand what exactly? Why Israel ignores the Geneva Convention? Why Israel breaks UN resolutions? Why people incorrectly think that Israel is populated only by people that are racially jewish? Why people think that criticism of Israel is racist in nature?
No, I can't understand. Seriously, I really can't. And putting on my girlfriend's high heels wont help.
Slashdot Mirror
Aww, come on. Don't let the facts get into the way of a good rant.
Anyway, Nick Pickles: Go read the fucking Computer Misuse Act.
Eric Pickles is the type of ignorant fuck that should be banned from politics.
Hey, Eric. Read the Computer Misuse Act. You can indeed prosecute people for abusing the databases to which they have access.
So don't go creating yet another badly written law to try and create a deterrent to something that's already illegal.
Fucking politicians.
There's a massive difference between the US asking Canada to acquire and share data relating to a crime in Canada, and the US forcing companies to break Canadian law to gain access to data relating to activities that may be perfectly legal in Canada.
One of those approaches respects the sovereignty of other nations and is ethically sound.
The other appears to be the preferred approach of the US.
I'm sorry, but who gives a fuck what the ITU have to say about DPI?
If I invent a new network protocol and people start using it, it gets used. I don't need the ITU to go "Ooh, that's nice. Everybody use Cederic's lovely new protocol"
The ITU didn't design, implement, promote and create a worldwide network based on TCP/IP. It managed perfectly well without them, and its replacement can too.
Let them make up their own little rules. The Internet grew without them, and a new network (with interoperability no less) can too.
Constant sources of new funds. I.e. people investing in the movie.
http://promobay.org/ is blocked on my Virgin broadband connection.
See also: http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Chatter/Blocking-of-the-Promo-Bay/m-p/1589066
Unlikely, the IWF aren't responsible for blocking The Pirate Bay either.
Given the different IP addresses for Pirate vs Promo bays, it does look as dodgy as shit. I may invest a few minutes of my time tomorrow to ask them which court order has mandated a block.
I don't deny the issues. I generally take a measured and considered response to them.
Turning "to their faith" is frankly lazy and susceptible to both corruption and malign influence. See also: Every monotheistic religion of the past 2000 years.
Anyway, faith in what exactly? Faith in some bloke in Rome that was a member of the Hitler Youth? Faith in some dead wife beater? Faith in some sky fairy that allowed the holocaust?
Major religious leaders support subjugation of women. Major religious leaders think abortion is wrong. Shit, the idiot in Rome thinks contraception is wrong.
These are perfectly valid views. I'm happy for people to hold them, although I don't support them enacting the subjugation one. What's very very fucking wrong - and still, I don't need religion to tell me this - is imposing those beliefs on others.
So fucking stop.
Yes, but do you actually like the colour blue? :)
Then I can not help you, for my proposed approach does indeed increase the purchasing power of people's money.
Well, technically it doesn't as the same level of wealth before and after buys the same amount of bread. However the number on the price tag has gone down, which is what you asked for.
Perhaps if you intended to ask for something else you could both clarify, and explain why my suggestion is inadequate.
My apologies, I hadn't realised that giving you an effective workable viable proven mechanism for achieving your aims wasn't actually what you wanted.
No shit. You then replace the existing currency with the new one, rename (if wanted) the new one to match the name of the existing one et voila: Dollars now worth less than they used to be. No reduction in real debt. No loss of real wealth.
It's been done. It's easy.
Actually no. Just declare that "new dollars" are worth half of dollars, design and print new notes, design and mint new coins, and give people time to exchange their old currency.
It's very possible and very easy. See also: Large economies in Europe switching to the Euro.
With a currency tied to gold, everything else is tied to gold as well. A loaf of bread, a car, a house.
There is no inflation
If I dig more gold out of the ground, then I can spend more than you. Prices rise.
That's inflation.
They're also right, within acceptable tolerances.
Acceptable to 99.5% of the population (apart from those two hours taking your physics exam).
Partially wrong is mostly right, and that's one reason they still keep getting taught. They're very useful.
If I tell you that I like the color blue, there is no way you can challenge that on scientific grounds. You either have to believe that I tell you the truth or disbelieve.
Step 1: show you multiple light sources restricted to narrow bands of wavelength. Ask you which ones are blue and make you happy. This will confirm your interpretation of "blue".
Step 2: calibrate measurement tools (lie detector, various neuroimaging approaches, observation of microexpressions, measurement of facial muscles, sexual arousal, etc)
Step 3: use the tools to test your response to multiple light sources of various colours, and/or various objects of various colours
Step 4: assess whether the hypothesis "granspassalan likes the colour blue" holds up to scientific investigation.
Note that step 3 could be improved through use of one or more control subjects.
Sure, there are certain flaws in the above process, but the method can be refined and improved. But yes, I can challenge your assertion on scientific grounds.
Welcome to science. It's lovely.
There's people who ascribe the term "evil" to each of those concepts (yes, even potty-training).
I don't think infantilism is a religion.
Huh? The world's religions, each and every one of them, are a system for doing just that!
Do please enlighten me: Is stoning your brother's wife for adultery right or wrong? Is killing gay people right or wrong?
Hint: There's the religious answer, and there's the answer deemed acceptable in modern Western civilisation.
Face it, religious dogma and indoctrination is WRONG. I don't need a fucking religion to tell me that.
What if Google used the justification that a publisher had demanded removal of excerpts, so Google has responded by removing those excerpts and corresponding links from all *.google.de sites?
If you can't link a sentence without paying for it, then you can't include it in search results either.
The article is suggesting that for a while at least, they were the best.
Seems credible, but I'd be interested in hearing about the alternatives.
Look, we're talking about an individual choosing to declare war on a country. They're equally capable of creating a new legal system that happens to include a new definition of 'war'.
I don't know about you, but I'm thinking this conversation would be better over a few beers and a good burger.
Military goals _are_ political goals. Targeting civilians is an overtly political act.
That doesn't mean it's right, or wrong. That's a moral judgement, not a military one.
You have land
This is a big part of the problem. Israel keeps building settlements on that land, using up one of the few natural resources (i.e. arable land) at the same time.
Joyful irony. Calling out a racist by using homophobia.
Never mind, your other posts had already demonstrated your lack of credibility anyway.
I don't get this. Seriously, I don't.
I only know people are Jewish if they tell me, or if they're wearing some obscure clothing - and even then, I don't know if it's a racial thing or a religious one.
I don't treat them differently anyway. And the ones I know don't seem to treat me differently either. (Some variance around religious rituals, but you get that stupidity in all races).
I've been asked if I'm Jewish, asked if I speak Hebrew and had someone tease a girlfriend about me in Hebrew. But I've also been asked if I'm French and been teased in German; that's the joy of a multicultural world.
you *cant* understand.
Can't understand what exactly? Why Israel ignores the Geneva Convention? Why Israel breaks UN resolutions? Why people incorrectly think that Israel is populated only by people that are racially jewish? Why people think that criticism of Israel is racist in nature?
No, I can't understand. Seriously, I really can't. And putting on my girlfriend's high heels wont help.