That 30 seconds of cursor blinking? The bootloader hack that you used to make your unlicensed copy of Windows 7 think that it's genuine is waiting for feedback from the bios. The 30 seconds is how long it takes to give up and continue booting. There are other/newer hacks that avoid that issue.
I think the "Freedom of Speech" became freedom to make noise some time ago. There's a lot more noise going on than speech these days, or at least that's what gets the attention of people. Bread and Circuses and Two Minutes' Hate for everybody!
Because the fact that murder is illegal means that nobody ever kills anyone/sarcasm. I'd consider owning an illegal handgun less severe a crime.
However, the people who illegally possess such guns in this country (Australia) generally aren't going to use them against scientists so much as dispatching competitors in their illicit businesses ie. gang/mob violence.
But some parties here are already pondering aloud to increase the insurance premium for people with higher "personal risk" (smokers, fat people, diabetics...)
We don't have that problem here. This is not because of anti-discriminatory laws. This is because health insurance of any kind is not required. There is no government-mandated health insurance, health care is provided to our citizens as a basic service at low cost to the user.
As far as high risk people go, we try to use preventative and education methods of reducing such risk. Excise on tobacco and alcohol products, advertisements on the effects of consumption, etc.
We don't have the same 'fear' of socialism as you do, so unless some other FUD is spread by self-interested persons we tend to try to aim for the most efficient and beneficial models of governmental services as we possibly can, whether it be socialist, free market, or something else.
Too bad we have universal healthcare here in Australia. Private health insurance is generally such bad value that it needs a 30% government rebate and the 1% extra tax if your income is above a certain threshhold if you don't get private coverage to make it somewhat 'competitive'.
Human institutions only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetime, never willingly or permanently reducing power or revenue. History has proven this over and over again, to the point where one could argue that the entire objective of human institutes is power and revenue.
Fixed that for you. Whatever the origins of a human institution, they end up serving the interests of those who are in a position of control within them.
The 'common' man does not care enough to control the government. He does not care enough to be properly informed of the choices, nor to exercise his duties as part of being a 'free' citizen in a democracy.
I live in the state of Victoria, in Australia. A few months ago I joined a political party, and since then we had a state election, where I handed out how-to-vote cards to voters. I don't agree with the whole concept of how-to-vote cards, but it is one of those evils that exist because many members of the voting public do not know how to vote regardless of how long they have been voting for, or they do not care enough about the process to inform themselves about the political parties and candidates to be able to choose their preferences besides following the preferences of whichever political party they identify with. I found myself having interesting conversations with the members of the other political parties, politicians and political candidates. I felt I had more in common with and more respect for the people whose opinions differed with mine than most of the general public because they cared about the process and were living up to their responsibilities as citizens.
Sure, there are many places and countries where it is elites who rule, but this is because the ordinary citizen does not care, and feels that their civic duties are fulfilled simply by arguing with an inanimate, unresponsive article of mass media within the comfort of their home, voting if compulsory, or at most (and potentially worst), loudly protesting uninformed, ignorant and wrong opinions. The reason why the rest of the world thinks that USAsians are idiots is not because they are, because most of them are not (maybe yet), but because the bigger and louder the idiot, the more air time they get.
I realise there's a difference between Australia and the US though: here, no formal votes are wasted because we can choose who we want to represent us and then preference which we feel is the lesser of two or more evils. It's a shame that in the US you'd have to co-ordinate to get so many people behind a third candidate to have any hope of influencing an election.
Well, I'm not the above anonymous coward, but I'll have a go anyway.
What is "significant suffering"?
Examples of "significant suffering" are reducing costs by using chemicals in manufacturing that harm or kill workers or consumers.
If I operate a small business and I take money from a poor person in return for heating oil thereby depriving him of the food he could have bought that can be said to cause suffering.
You wouldn't be depriving him of food. It was his own responsibility to best judge the opportunity costs of his actions. We as a society should maintain minimum standards for the poor and vulnerable, but unless you were coercing him into giving up food then that wasn't your responsibility as a business.
As the same small business if I choose to buy gas from $BigEvilGasCo I'm still operating within my rights.
Sure, it's within your rights. What makes $BigEvilGasCo 'evil'? There's nothing inherently wrong with it being big. If it uses its size to reduce competition (no longer a free market, if barriers to entry didn't do that already), then that's harmful to everyone who isn't a company employee or shareholder, including you. But once again, this isn't your fault.
The analogy is $BigWheatCo taking money from $SmallAfricanGrocery in return for food, thereby "impoverishing" that country.
Generally, the problem with $BigWheatCo and other large food producers is that the companies get massive subsidies for producing food in developed countries, and can sell for below cost which undercuts farming in developing and undeveloped countries. And then the product of the developed countries is bought up by their governments and dumped on the impoverished countries in the form of "aid", killing off local agriculture because it can't compete with "free".
Or $BigPharmaCo choosing to spend money on advertising rather than giving it away.
Or maybe they should not spend money on advertising and instead spend it on further R&D, or just reduce the prices of pharmaceuticals because they'll have reduced costs. Hell, they've got bloody patents monopolising their investments, so why should they need to advertise if their pharmaceuticals are beneficial?
It is disingenuous to support the right of small companies to make money while denying the right of large companies to do the same.
We (or at least I) are not against anyone making a buck, or billions at that. Making a lot of money doesn't mean that we think anyone is being screwed over by default. The one thing that irks me is that people like you scream and whine whenever you feel that the government is screwing you in the slightest, but are happy to take it in all holes from the corporations. I'm against both.
Are you for the free market or against it?
I'm for the free market, or at least as close as we can get to such a theoretical construct. In a free market, someone can end up better off than someone else, but nobody gets screwed.
For now, it will cost you more than the gold is worth, but once energy becomes almost free...
...then gold and lead will be worth the same. Likely the value of lead will go up and the value of gold will go down in proportion to supply and demand of the respective elements.
I (at least these days) always think of the business concept of a "consumer" as being a thoughtless, emotion-driven automaton that exists solely to purchase goods and services provided by businesses, mainly because of the language used that refers to "consumers" in such contexts.
But yeah, we (almost all) consume in the sense that we buy stuff. Technically, growing your own stuff consumes resources too.
Don't forget impounding those evil "hoons" cars. Nothing is more important than ensuring that Australian roads are completely free of import vehicles and car enthusiasts. How else can you train the population to help the government prop up our car industry than to intimidate them into buying the junk that rolls off the assembly line here?
Well, that's blatantly wrong. Considering the pointless Holden vs Ford patriotism that goes on here there's no government intervention required to keep bogans buying locally produced cars (except for those produced by Asian owned manufacturers). I'm all for repeat or blatant idiots having their cars impounded. I had some moron drive into me to cut in front of me at a set of traffic lights, and then he raged and reversed into me before speeding off. That's the only collision I've ever been involved in.
Or making sure that nobody, absolutely nobody, takes their eyes off the speedometer for even half a second, lest they creep 0.0000001 km/h over the limit, thereby killing 10 starving disabled orphans instantly and advancing the impending doom of civilisation.
+1 troll there. I've been done for speeding a minor amount over the limit a couple of times. There's usually leeway in the form of not fining someone until they are a certain amount over the speed limit. It's adequate motivation to make me check my speed whenever I pass fixed speed cameras or see brand new cars suspiciously parked in unusual places.
The agency didn't secure the pages, so the government kicked up a stink about being "hacked".
Quote from your linked article: 'Campbell said he had been advised by the IT contractor building the website, Bang The Table, that "there were two days of IT attacks on the website firewall security that began on Thursday 18 February at 8.44 p.m. and continued until around midday on Friday 19 February".'
Sounds like a Cover Your Ass on behalf of the contractor and a politician. Nothing new there.
That and that practically nobody else has taken them into account, so if they're in the market for video games they've likely already developed the ability to play like the other 90%. That means that you'd be aiming for an even smaller segment of the population than that 10%.
I tried that some time ago. Unfortunately it seems that some old games don't test the capabilities of the virtualized graphics "hardware" so much as compare it to some internal list of supported hardware, and thus refuse to run
No sane person votes for the Religion First party. The only reason they've ever had -one- senate seat was due to preferencing by Labor. I guess that could conceivably happen again with the Liberals preferencing them this election, but it was enough of a fluke in the 2004 election.
I grew up in and used to live in South Australia. Considering the "tough on crime" and other nanny-state approaches the state government has, I'd put it down to the government playing on various ignorant people within the population. Also they've had a Labor state government for a while because last time the Liberals were in they either severely neglected or privatized public services and property.
I'm pretty sure there are many people there, and in fact in every state in Australia who are sick of the two major parties and would vote for someone else if they properly understood the electoral system. After all, in the second-to-last South Australian state election Nick Xenophon as an independent got enough votes for the senate to get himself and another senator elected. That's just the power of someone having a big enough name and reputation, unlike the people who get elected because they're behind the mask of a big name political party. Last election Xenophon stood for election for the federal senate and once again got in.
Since then I've moved to Victoria, so on Saturday regardless of my other choices I'll be doing my part in voting below the line on the senate ballot to put Stephen Conroy last.
It's kind of funny how "Conservatives" like to preach that "Liberals" don't understand Economics 101, yet in their supposed worship of the (theoretical) free market they're quite happy to ignore instances of market failure, such as natural monopolies, externalities and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
That 30 seconds of cursor blinking? The bootloader hack that you used to make your unlicensed copy of Windows 7 think that it's genuine is waiting for feedback from the bios. The 30 seconds is how long it takes to give up and continue booting. There are other/newer hacks that avoid that issue.
Funny, I always thought that science was about reproducibility
And lobbyists
I think you're wrongly assuming that members of Congress read laws
I think the "Freedom of Speech" became freedom to make noise some time ago. There's a lot more noise going on than speech these days, or at least that's what gets the attention of people. Bread and Circuses and Two Minutes' Hate for everybody!
Because the fact that murder is illegal means that nobody ever kills anyone /sarcasm. I'd consider owning an illegal handgun less severe a crime.
However, the people who illegally possess such guns in this country (Australia) generally aren't going to use them against scientists so much as dispatching competitors in their illicit businesses ie. gang/mob violence.
You can do anything at Zombocom. Anything at all
But some parties here are already pondering aloud to increase the insurance premium for people with higher "personal risk" (smokers, fat people, diabetics...)
We don't have that problem here. This is not because of anti-discriminatory laws. This is because health insurance of any kind is not required. There is no government-mandated health insurance, health care is provided to our citizens as a basic service at low cost to the user.
As far as high risk people go, we try to use preventative and education methods of reducing such risk. Excise on tobacco and alcohol products, advertisements on the effects of consumption, etc.
We don't have the same 'fear' of socialism as you do, so unless some other FUD is spread by self-interested persons we tend to try to aim for the most efficient and beneficial models of governmental services as we possibly can, whether it be socialist, free market, or something else.
Too bad we have universal healthcare here in Australia. Private health insurance is generally such bad value that it needs a 30% government rebate and the 1% extra tax if your income is above a certain threshhold if you don't get private coverage to make it somewhat 'competitive'.
Human institutions only expand in power and revenue throughout their lifetime, never willingly or permanently reducing power or revenue. History has proven this over and over again, to the point where one could argue that the entire objective of human institutes is power and revenue.
Fixed that for you. Whatever the origins of a human institution, they end up serving the interests of those who are in a position of control within them.
The 'common' man does not care enough to control the government. He does not care enough to be properly informed of the choices, nor to exercise his duties as part of being a 'free' citizen in a democracy.
I live in the state of Victoria, in Australia. A few months ago I joined a political party, and since then we had a state election, where I handed out how-to-vote cards to voters. I don't agree with the whole concept of how-to-vote cards, but it is one of those evils that exist because many members of the voting public do not know how to vote regardless of how long they have been voting for, or they do not care enough about the process to inform themselves about the political parties and candidates to be able to choose their preferences besides following the preferences of whichever political party they identify with. I found myself having interesting conversations with the members of the other political parties, politicians and political candidates. I felt I had more in common with and more respect for the people whose opinions differed with mine than most of the general public because they cared about the process and were living up to their responsibilities as citizens.
Sure, there are many places and countries where it is elites who rule, but this is because the ordinary citizen does not care, and feels that their civic duties are fulfilled simply by arguing with an inanimate, unresponsive article of mass media within the comfort of their home, voting if compulsory, or at most (and potentially worst), loudly protesting uninformed, ignorant and wrong opinions. The reason why the rest of the world thinks that USAsians are idiots is not because they are, because most of them are not (maybe yet), but because the bigger and louder the idiot, the more air time they get.
I realise there's a difference between Australia and the US though: here, no formal votes are wasted because we can choose who we want to represent us and then preference which we feel is the lesser of two or more evils. It's a shame that in the US you'd have to co-ordinate to get so many people behind a third candidate to have any hope of influencing an election.
Well, I'm not the above anonymous coward, but I'll have a go anyway.
What is "significant suffering"?
Examples of "significant suffering" are reducing costs by using chemicals in manufacturing that harm or kill workers or consumers.
If I operate a small business and I take money from a poor person in return for heating oil thereby depriving him of the food he could have bought that can be said to cause suffering.
You wouldn't be depriving him of food. It was his own responsibility to best judge the opportunity costs of his actions. We as a society should maintain minimum standards for the poor and vulnerable, but unless you were coercing him into giving up food then that wasn't your responsibility as a business.
As the same small business if I choose to buy gas from $BigEvilGasCo I'm still operating within my rights.
Sure, it's within your rights. What makes $BigEvilGasCo 'evil'? There's nothing inherently wrong with it being big. If it uses its size to reduce competition (no longer a free market, if barriers to entry didn't do that already), then that's harmful to everyone who isn't a company employee or shareholder, including you. But once again, this isn't your fault.
The analogy is $BigWheatCo taking money from $SmallAfricanGrocery in return for food, thereby "impoverishing" that country.
Generally, the problem with $BigWheatCo and other large food producers is that the companies get massive subsidies for producing food in developed countries, and can sell for below cost which undercuts farming in developing and undeveloped countries. And then the product of the developed countries is bought up by their governments and dumped on the impoverished countries in the form of "aid", killing off local agriculture because it can't compete with "free".
Or $BigPharmaCo choosing to spend money on advertising rather than giving it away.
Or maybe they should not spend money on advertising and instead spend it on further R&D, or just reduce the prices of pharmaceuticals because they'll have reduced costs. Hell, they've got bloody patents monopolising their investments, so why should they need to advertise if their pharmaceuticals are beneficial?
It is disingenuous to support the right of small companies to make money while denying the right of large companies to do the same.
We (or at least I) are not against anyone making a buck, or billions at that. Making a lot of money doesn't mean that we think anyone is being screwed over by default. The one thing that irks me is that people like you scream and whine whenever you feel that the government is screwing you in the slightest, but are happy to take it in all holes from the corporations. I'm against both.
Are you for the free market or against it?
I'm for the free market, or at least as close as we can get to such a theoretical construct. In a free market, someone can end up better off than someone else, but nobody gets screwed.
I'd say that the new fish were indeed unable to breed with the fish without the adaptation, as those fish were dead
For now, it will cost you more than the gold is worth, but once energy becomes almost free...
...then gold and lead will be worth the same. Likely the value of lead will go up and the value of gold will go down in proportion to supply and demand of the respective elements.
Somehow parent seems strangely relevant
I (at least these days) always think of the business concept of a "consumer" as being a thoughtless, emotion-driven automaton that exists solely to purchase goods and services provided by businesses, mainly because of the language used that refers to "consumers" in such contexts.
But yeah, we (almost all) consume in the sense that we buy stuff. Technically, growing your own stuff consumes resources too.
Perhaps I'm just being pedantic.
The cinema at which I frequent charges only $2 more for 3D movies, and an extra dollar for reusable 3D glasses if you don't have any.
The food is the real cash cow.
Don't forget impounding those evil "hoons" cars. Nothing is more important than ensuring that Australian roads are completely free of import vehicles and car enthusiasts. How else can you train the population to help the government prop up our car industry than to intimidate them into buying the junk that rolls off the assembly line here?
Well, that's blatantly wrong. Considering the pointless Holden vs Ford patriotism that goes on here there's no government intervention required to keep bogans buying locally produced cars (except for those produced by Asian owned manufacturers). I'm all for repeat or blatant idiots having their cars impounded. I had some moron drive into me to cut in front of me at a set of traffic lights, and then he raged and reversed into me before speeding off. That's the only collision I've ever been involved in.
Or making sure that nobody, absolutely nobody, takes their eyes off the speedometer for even half a second, lest they creep 0.0000001 km/h over the limit, thereby killing 10 starving disabled orphans instantly and advancing the impending doom of civilisation.
+1 troll there. I've been done for speeding a minor amount over the limit a couple of times. There's usually leeway in the form of not fining someone until they are a certain amount over the speed limit. It's adequate motivation to make me check my speed whenever I pass fixed speed cameras or see brand new cars suspiciously parked in unusual places.
The agency didn't secure the pages, so the government kicked up a stink about being "hacked".
Quote from your linked article: 'Campbell said he had been advised by the IT contractor building the website, Bang The Table, that "there were two days of IT attacks on the website firewall security that began on Thursday 18 February at 8.44 p.m. and continued until around midday on Friday 19 February".'
Sounds like a Cover Your Ass on behalf of the contractor and a politician. Nothing new there.
Firebombs make great imprisonment devices. Just make sure all exits are covered.
+2 flamebait indeed.
But you can imprison senior management. You know, those who control the company
That and that practically nobody else has taken them into account, so if they're in the market for video games they've likely already developed the ability to play like the other 90%. That means that you'd be aiming for an even smaller segment of the population than that 10%.
I tried that some time ago. Unfortunately it seems that some old games don't test the capabilities of the virtualized graphics "hardware" so much as compare it to some internal list of supported hardware, and thus refuse to run
No sane person votes for the Religion First party. The only reason they've ever had -one- senate seat was due to preferencing by Labor. I guess that could conceivably happen again with the Liberals preferencing them this election, but it was enough of a fluke in the 2004 election.
I grew up in and used to live in South Australia. Considering the "tough on crime" and other nanny-state approaches the state government has, I'd put it down to the government playing on various ignorant people within the population. Also they've had a Labor state government for a while because last time the Liberals were in they either severely neglected or privatized public services and property.
I'm pretty sure there are many people there, and in fact in every state in Australia who are sick of the two major parties and would vote for someone else if they properly understood the electoral system. After all, in the second-to-last South Australian state election Nick Xenophon as an independent got enough votes for the senate to get himself and another senator elected. That's just the power of someone having a big enough name and reputation, unlike the people who get elected because they're behind the mask of a big name political party. Last election Xenophon stood for election for the federal senate and once again got in.
Since then I've moved to Victoria, so on Saturday regardless of my other choices I'll be doing my part in voting below the line on the senate ballot to put Stephen Conroy last.
It's kind of funny how "Conservatives" like to preach that "Liberals" don't understand Economics 101, yet in their supposed worship of the (theoretical) free market they're quite happy to ignore instances of market failure, such as natural monopolies, externalities and the like.