In the face of meatspace terrorism, meatspace liberties can be curtailed. That's why there's "concern" over cyberterrorism. Because the internet is not healthy for the establishment. It can spread both truth and propaganda, but currently, it tends too much toward truth for the establishment. If that sounds crazy to you (nothing on the internet but lies and pr0n!) then you haven't looked around.
FTA:
It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House's assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence. Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle? The administration's claims could lead to policies with serious, long-term, troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy.
Yes, this same thing keeps happening, where a (possibly) real world problem is used to justify a curtailing of freedom, consolidation of power, and serving various agendas of people in power at the time. A cynic might say it's planned, but we're not cynical, are we?
I suggest we give it a name. Let's call it Problem-Reaction-Solution.
Judging by what little I've seen of the selection of beef, and meats in general, in the EU, I'd have to say no thanks. We'll take more of your beer though.
I don't disagree with the second amendment per se, but implying that it holds the government in check has always seemed silly to me.
Iraq.
Indeed practically nothing short of another tank can stop a tank.
They've gotta get out to take a piss some time, don't they? I think I heard this on/., can't remember who.
What holds the government in check is a combination of the rule of law and a culture in the military that makes them nearly unusable in domestic situations. You'd never see a Tienanmen Square in this country because the military would simply refuse the order.
This is true in America to a large extent, but both rule of law and that military culture have been eroding for a while. Anyway, the military is supplying local cops with weapons, and they don't have the same culture. If there's any doubt whether our military considers us their enemy, the police certainly do.
Which is one of the biggest reasons that there's supposed to be an iron curtain between police and military. Otherwise, it ends up looking like Akira.
No, you just don't get it. They're guilty of the sin of speculating with their own money, which is why their legs should be broken.
Now if they were speculating with other people's money, then they would be deserving of bailouts at the taxpayers' expense.
Really, wtf people? Slashdot gets so hypocritically outraged at the weirdest fucking things. Are you also going to get out your crowbar because someone took your.name@gmail.com too? Get over it, you have no innate right to a certain string of characters, any more than the content cartels have an innate right to certain strings of bits.
If someone is hawking product under a name covered by your trademark, in the same market, using a deceptively similar logo, then that's one thing. That's trademark violation, and it's about fraud, not about intellectual property, legal opinions other than my own be damned, because I happen to be right.*
But if someone has a funny porn site that happens to have a substring of your toy company trademark in the domain name, feel free to have a nice cup of stfu with your tough shit salad.
Whoever wants to take the oblig xkcd funny, you're welcome.
* This is the correct opinion, not necessarily the establishment opinion (which, again, if it differs from mine, and ISTR it does, happens to be wrong).
Emissions targets, pg 513: 2012, = 97% of 2005 levels 2020, = 80% of 2005 levels 2030, = 58% of 2005 levels 2050, = 17% of 2005 levels
Designation of greenhouse gasses, pg 530: +Carbon dioxide +Methane +Nitrous oxide +Sulfur hexafluoride +Sulfur hexafluoride. +Hydrofluorocarbons from a chemical manufacturing process at an industrial stationary source. +Any perfluorocarbon. +Nitrogen trifluoride. +Any other anthropogenic gas designated as a greenhouse gas by the Administrator under this section.
Carbon dioxide equivalents, table on pg 539.
Regulated entities (those that must report emissions), pg 542, pg 669: Threshold = 25,000 tons annually in equivalent carbon dioxide emissions.
Any entity or combination of two or more entities that, in year 2008 or after, emits, produces, imports, manufactures, or delivers excess of threshold.
Any vehicle fleet that emits more than threshold.
Any natural gas company delivering 460M CuFt or more annually to non-covered entities.
Others that, AFAICT, aren't related to the annual threshold, pg 670: 542 ??(F) Any stationary source in the following industrial sectors: ??(i) Adipic acid production. ??(ii) Primary aluminum production. ??(iii) Ammonia manufacturing. ??(iv) Cement production, excluding grinding-only operations. ??(v) Hydrochlorofluorocarbon produc- tion. ??(vi) Lime manufacturing. ??(vii) Nitric acid production. ??(viii) Petroleum refining. ??(ix) Phosphoric acid production. ??(x) Silicon carbide production. ??(xi) Soda ash production. ??(xii) Titanium dioxide production. ??(xiii) Coal-based liquid or gaseous fuel production.
Pg 553, Sec. 721, Emission allowances Allowances are established by EPA Administrator (per Sec. 2, pg 9) Emission allowance schedule, pg 555 pg 557, conditions for Administrator to adjust number of allowances
In Sec. 722, pg 564, they begin talking about who reports emissions from what types of fuel. I assume this is to prevent double dipping, but I don't know enough about the industry to make sense of it. Maybe someone else can pick this up.
Pg 577, is where the "twice the market value" punishment for non-compliance comes from.
Pg 581, borrowing system for emission allowances, both with and without interest.
They were never there to protect children. The patriot act isn't there to counter terrorism. The (now in committee) cybersecurity bills aren't there to stop crackers, spammers, or counter legitimate threats against our infrastructure. The dmca isn't there to stop piracy.
We didn't invade Iraq because they posed a threat to us, nor Afghanistan. We weren't warmongering wrt Iran because they pose any threat to us.
If you think about it, this all goes back quite a long way: Vietnam, war on drugs, Korean war, gun control, WW1,...
We did those things because they benefited someone, and the people, who commit their money, conviction, and their lives to supporting those actions, are dumb enough to believe in lies, are cowards, and have a very immoral character (thus the witch hunts).
Can we just abolish intellectual monopoly already? (And all government-granted monopolies while we're at it?) I'm not seeing any baby in this bathwater.
Yeah, but what do hardware manufacturers owe to people who don't use MS or Apple? What do web devs owe to people who don't use IE?
Having users buys you drivers and standards. Not that it means you're wrong, just a difference of opinion. Every developer will fall somewhere along the spectrum of "I wish I could use this video card" vs "No, you can not have that icon in cornflower blue."
Assembly isn't dead you young punk. All your fancy "compiler" does is just create assembly code anyway. I could code circles around you whippersnappers using punch cards! Now get off my lawn!
Now in seriousness, the difference between assembly/higher-level vs html/js is that, while higher level languages were legitimately needed and represented progress, javascript today is being used to make things happen, by view-time execution, which are essentially predetermined and have no business needing scripting. Things like simple menus, and even links for god's sake.
Maybe by 2020, we'll actually have some standards for things like <menu> tags. Although I'm sure there still won't be any public domain reference implementations. The standards bodies consider that beneath them. Oh, I know a good one: maybe by 2020, we'll realize that, even though using <table> for layout is dumb, that it is completely natural and intuitive to organize things in rectangles, and we'll finally get over our dogmatic anti-rectangle propaganda.
OT: if I selected PLAIN OLD TEXT (TM), then why do I have to escape lt's and gt's?
I've also heard people say that our interest in Pakistan is because the Chinese want to build a pipeline to Iran through there. Don't have any info though.
But this is America. Backroom stuff like this only happens in other countries, but never here.
Oh no, of course not. Americans have one of the highest per capita savings rates in the world. Right now, instead of paying for music and movies, they're saving that money for their retirement.
If you are a member of an extremist group (non-violent, at least), do you need to hide that in the US?
Maybe. All it takes are allegations of violence, or allegations of potential violence.... Really, all it takes is the word of the government.
Can you buy military style weapons in the US?
You can legally buy neutered firearms, not exactly military style. The firearms which you can legally buy, you must register, or in some way sacrifice anonymity, in most places. You can buy pepper spray, etc, in most places, AFAIK, with a good degree of anonymity. But firearms are completely different.
And I've been looking around for LAME (the not-the-mp3-encoder) stuff for the past 30 minutes. I've never heard of Google Squared before, so I thought I'd test it out with lame:
The average mp4 vs a highly compressed digital cable channel might be equivalent, but the market wants DVD quality without any sacrifice from downloaded video.
As far as the audio situation being different from video, one of the reasons is that audio has been distributed (very near) DRM free and damn good quality ever since cds. So there was made an infrastructure for people putting up pirated versions ripped from the high quality originals.
Video is different. DVD is mpeg2, which isn't all that great, but much of the pirated video out there is reencoded with this as the original source. So to keep a decent amount of quality, you have to use larger file size, even with these superior codecs, because the original isn't exactly spectacular in terms of quality/size. And the industry refuses to put stuff out in anything better than mpeg2 without making it a royal PITA to use. So we're not taking full advantage of new codecs and getting the mileage out of them that we should be. This is changing, but takes time.
By law, those titles of the United States Code that have not been enacted into positive law are "prima facie evidence"[2] of the law in effect. The United States Statutes at Large remains the ultimate authority. If a dispute arises as to the accuracy or completeness of the codification of an unenacted title, the courts will turn to the language in the United States Statutes at Large. Where a title has been enacted into positive law, however, a court may neither permit nor require proof of the underlying original statutes.[3] The distinction between enacted and unenacted titles is largely academic because the Code is nearly always accurate. The United States Code is routinely cited by the Supreme Court and other federal courts without mentioning this theoretical caveat. On a day-to-day basis, very few lawyers cross-reference the Code to the Statutes at Large.
The authority for the material in the United States Code comes from its enactment through the legislative process and not from its presentation in the Code. For example, the United States Code inadvertently omitted 12 U.S.C. § 92 for decades, even after Congress amended it in 1982. In its 1993 ruling in U.S. National Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, the Supreme Court ruled that section 92 was still valid law.[4]
The LRC continues the process of revising, updating, and restating the existing body of statutory law in codified form. As the LRC completes particular areas of the law, it proposes that the Congress enact those titles of the Code as "positive law". If a particular title of the United States Code is enacted into law, the enactment repeals all previous enactments on the subject (including those found in the Statutes at Large), thereby making that title of the United States Code "legal evidence"[5] of the law in force.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not going out on a limb here to defend our law or legal system. Our legal system still sucks. Not as much as many other places, but sucks nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
In the face of meatspace terrorism, meatspace liberties can be curtailed. That's why there's "concern" over cyberterrorism. Because the internet is not healthy for the establishment. It can spread both truth and propaganda, but currently, it tends too much toward truth for the establishment. If that sounds crazy to you (nothing on the internet but lies and pr0n!) then you haven't looked around.
FTA:
Yes, this same thing keeps happening, where a (possibly) real world problem is used to justify a curtailing of freedom, consolidation of power, and serving various agendas of people in power at the time. A cynic might say it's planned, but we're not cynical, are we?
I suggest we give it a name. Let's call it Problem-Reaction-Solution.
No, don't you see? It was funded by the Tokugawa!
They're making their move, it seems.
Judging by what little I've seen of the selection of beef, and meats in general, in the EU, I'd have to say no thanks. We'll take more of your beer though.
Iraq.
They've gotta get out to take a piss some time, don't they? I think I heard this on /., can't remember who.
This is true in America to a large extent, but both rule of law and that military culture have been eroding for a while. Anyway, the military is supplying local cops with weapons, and they don't have the same culture. If there's any doubt whether our military considers us their enemy, the police certainly do.
Which is one of the biggest reasons that there's supposed to be an iron curtain between police and military. Otherwise, it ends up looking like Akira.
No, you just don't get it. They're guilty of the sin of speculating with their own money, which is why their legs should be broken.
Now if they were speculating with other people's money, then they would be deserving of bailouts at the taxpayers' expense.
Really, wtf people? Slashdot gets so hypocritically outraged at the weirdest fucking things. Are you also going to get out your crowbar because someone took your.name@gmail.com too? Get over it, you have no innate right to a certain string of characters, any more than the content cartels have an innate right to certain strings of bits.
If someone is hawking product under a name covered by your trademark, in the same market, using a deceptively similar logo, then that's one thing. That's trademark violation, and it's about fraud, not about intellectual property, legal opinions other than my own be damned, because I happen to be right.*
But if someone has a funny porn site that happens to have a substring of your toy company trademark in the domain name, feel free to have a nice cup of stfu with your tough shit salad.
Whoever wants to take the oblig xkcd funny, you're welcome.
* This is the correct opinion, not necessarily the establishment opinion (which, again, if it differs from mine, and ISTR it does, happens to be wrong).
After some light reading:
Emissions targets, pg 513:
2012, = 97% of 2005 levels
2020, = 80% of 2005 levels
2030, = 58% of 2005 levels
2050, = 17% of 2005 levels
Designation of greenhouse gasses, pg 530:
+Carbon dioxide
+Methane
+Nitrous oxide
+Sulfur hexafluoride
+Sulfur hexafluoride.
+Hydrofluorocarbons from a chemical manufacturing process at an industrial stationary source.
+Any perfluorocarbon.
+Nitrogen trifluoride.
+Any other anthropogenic gas designated as a greenhouse gas by the Administrator under this section.
Carbon dioxide equivalents, table on pg 539.
Regulated entities (those that must report emissions), pg 542, pg 669:
Threshold = 25,000 tons annually in equivalent carbon dioxide emissions.
Any entity or combination of two or more entities that, in year 2008 or after, emits, produces, imports, manufactures, or delivers excess of threshold.
Any vehicle fleet that emits more than threshold.
Any natural gas company delivering 460M CuFt or more annually to non-covered entities.
Others that, AFAICT, aren't related to the annual threshold, pg 670: 542
??(F) Any stationary source in the following
industrial sectors:
??(i) Adipic acid production.
??(ii) Primary aluminum production.
??(iii) Ammonia manufacturing.
??(iv) Cement production, excluding
grinding-only operations.
??(v) Hydrochlorofluorocarbon produc-
tion.
??(vi) Lime manufacturing.
??(vii) Nitric acid production.
??(viii) Petroleum refining.
??(ix) Phosphoric acid production.
??(x) Silicon carbide production.
??(xi) Soda ash production.
??(xii) Titanium dioxide production.
??(xiii) Coal-based liquid or gaseous
fuel production.
Pg 553, Sec. 721, Emission allowances
Allowances are established by EPA Administrator (per Sec. 2, pg 9)
Emission allowance schedule, pg 555
pg 557, conditions for Administrator to adjust number of allowances
In Sec. 722, pg 564, they begin talking about who reports emissions from what types of fuel. I assume this is to prevent double dipping, but I don't know enough about the industry to make sense of it. Maybe someone else can pick this up.
Pg 577, is where the "twice the market value" punishment for non-compliance comes from.
Pg 581, borrowing system for emission allowances, both with and without interest.
Somebody else pick it up from here.
Jesus fucking christ, thomas.loc.gov sucks.
Here it is at govtrack (I should have known to go there in the first place):
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
The pdf comes in at 1092 pages. I'd post the TOC, but even that is 6 pages long.
They were never there to protect children. The patriot act isn't there to counter terrorism. The (now in committee) cybersecurity bills aren't there to stop crackers, spammers, or counter legitimate threats against our infrastructure. The dmca isn't there to stop piracy.
We didn't invade Iraq because they posed a threat to us, nor Afghanistan. We weren't warmongering wrt Iran because they pose any threat to us.
If you think about it, this all goes back quite a long way: Vietnam, war on drugs, Korean war, gun control, WW1, ...
We did those things because they benefited someone, and the people, who commit their money, conviction, and their lives to supporting those actions, are dumb enough to believe in lies, are cowards, and have a very immoral character (thus the witch hunts).
Can we just abolish intellectual monopoly already? (And all government-granted monopolies while we're at it?) I'm not seeing any baby in this bathwater.
Yeah, but what do hardware manufacturers owe to people who don't use MS or Apple? What do web devs owe to people who don't use IE?
Having users buys you drivers and standards. Not that it means you're wrong, just a difference of opinion. Every developer will fall somewhere along the spectrum of "I wish I could use this video card" vs "No, you can not have that icon in cornflower blue."
Assembly isn't dead you young punk. All your fancy "compiler" does is just create assembly code anyway. I could code circles around you whippersnappers using punch cards! Now get off my lawn!
Now in seriousness, the difference between assembly/higher-level vs html/js is that, while higher level languages were legitimately needed and represented progress, javascript today is being used to make things happen, by view-time execution, which are essentially predetermined and have no business needing scripting. Things like simple menus, and even links for god's sake.
Maybe by 2020, we'll actually have some standards for things like <menu> tags. Although I'm sure there still won't be any public domain reference implementations. The standards bodies consider that beneath them. Oh, I know a good one: maybe by 2020, we'll realize that, even though using <table> for layout is dumb, that it is completely natural and intuitive to organize things in rectangles, and we'll finally get over our dogmatic anti-rectangle propaganda.
OT: if I selected PLAIN OLD TEXT (TM), then why do I have to escape lt's and gt's?
Not sure if this works in linux
http://www.downloadhelper.net/
It's basically automating what you just said, it says it works in linux, but you know how that goes.
Absolutely. We've seen that recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#Legislative_history
In case you don't know this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
I've also heard people say that our interest in Pakistan is because the Chinese want to build a pipeline to Iran through there. Don't have any info though.
But this is America. Backroom stuff like this only happens in other countries, but never here.
In the pdf, Sec. 401 (pg 135), it starts outlining amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to "tax individuals without acceptable coverage."
I'm just reading the headings, I have no idea what it says.
Yeah seriously, wtf? Where are people getting that from anyway? Is there some oldies band or something named foxfire?
Wiki says there's a comic that may be a candidate for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxfire
File it with nucular and lose/loose, I guess.
Oh no, of course not. Americans have one of the highest per capita savings rates in the world. Right now, instead of paying for music and movies, they're saving that money for their retirement.
Maybe. All it takes are allegations of violence, or allegations of potential violence .... Really, all it takes is the word of the government.
You can legally buy neutered firearms, not exactly military style. The firearms which you can legally buy, you must register, or in some way sacrifice anonymity, in most places. You can buy pepper spray, etc, in most places, AFAIK, with a good degree of anonymity. But firearms are completely different.
after voting in this, and vote multiple times.
Because dumb questions deserve it.
BIG difference between slashdot and hulu. Slashdot just provides a medium. The users and other organizations supply nearly all the content.
And I've been looking around for LAME (the not-the-mp3-encoder) stuff for the past 30 minutes. I've never heard of Google Squared before, so I thought I'd test it out with lame:
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=lame
Apparently google doesn't like bond movies ... Or it knows where I can dl mp3s of the soundtracks ... I'm not actually sure.
Then I decided to RTFM, and use a different string, and it was actually pretty cool:
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=lame+front+ends
Got it, thanks. I hate being behind on the memes, /. barely makes sense that way.
Remind me again, what story was that from? It was something about linux being used in a school right?
As far as the audio situation being different from video, one of the reasons is that audio has been distributed (very near) DRM free and damn good quality ever since cds. So there was made an infrastructure for people putting up pirated versions ripped from the high quality originals.
Video is different. DVD is mpeg2, which isn't all that great, but much of the pirated video out there is reencoded with this as the original source. So to keep a decent amount of quality, you have to use larger file size, even with these superior codecs, because the original isn't exactly spectacular in terms of quality/size. And the industry refuses to put stuff out in anything better than mpeg2 without making it a royal PITA to use. So we're not taking full advantage of new codecs and getting the mileage out of them that we should be. This is changing, but takes time.
FWIW, this is according to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_code:
United States Code downloads:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml
But don't get me wrong, I'm not going out on a limb here to defend our law or legal system. Our legal system still sucks. Not as much as many other places, but sucks nonetheless.