Hmm... I guess I can see where people would want to recognize the difference between those. With the Wikipedia argument/usage of the terms interchangeably adding to the obfuscation and the insistence of some who use that and their own terminology or experiences as showing the lack of distinction it appears to be a lot like the "your DSL box is not a MODEM" argument. When you put it that way I can see a distinction that I'd not considered so, thanks.
To fan the flames, another good one was the advent of "Free Speech Zones" in the political arena. In a twist of fate, it just so happens that the idea was first used by the Democrats. It is amazing how quickly people forget or are willing to be blindly partisan. There is a reason why I don't typically vote for anyone with either of the two major parties' abbreviations behind their name.
Yes, I'm aware that I am throwing my vote away in that my candidates will almost never be elected but that is my "protest vote" and I engage in it most every time and have for years. So seldom has a candidate impressed me enough to vote for them that I vote simply to vote against them. Again, in my mind at least, there is a vast difference between the two.
This is the internet. I'm afraid you're shit out of luck.;)
(Trying Opera, again. I used it before Firefox. Someone mentioned extensions in another thread so I installed it again. So far it is pretty speedy.)
Anyhow, I'd be interested in a site where logic rules the day and the topic was technology. I'd like something similar to what I recall Slashdot as having been. I am slightly worried that I am remembering Slashdot of yore through the haze of rose colored glasses though.
I am inclined to agree with the former though I can see a case being made for the latter. It seems to me that it would have been around the time when they decided they could regulate someone growing wheat because not growing it was affecting commerce across the several states which is an absurd abuse. I'd have to go over the case again and familiarize myself with it but that, while that seems like a likely time for the tipping point there has to have been a change in attitude somewhere that preceded that. Well, it seems likely to me that the change in attitude preceded that.
The article indicates that they are the police and it goes without saying that the police are there to serve both companies and the people. We could argue the point of their ability or willingness to serve but, again, that's hardly the point. The point was that it was, and remains, an invalid complaint.
As to passing through metal detectors, who really cares, after all anyone that can't afford a real gun from illegal sources isn't going to be going into the areas 'protected' by metal detectors.
I can't really pin point exactly when it happened but, at some point, things changed. When the Constitution was authored it was a list of enumerated powers - it was a list of things that the government had the power to do. It has become, in practice, a list of things the government can't do (meaning that they think they can do anything not specifically prohibited). The differences between those two are vast and important.
This makes more sense. Thank you. It seems to be that an application that takes care to run simultaneously across multiple cores and/or multiple CPUs would be concurrent. Assuming I'm understanding properly.
Could you take the time to explain the difference for me? If you don't have the time then don't worry about it. If you do have the time it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, either way.
The link is a legitimate link and a valuable link. You really can buy them for $10 on Amazon - new. This whole thing is starting to reek of a scam or, at least, a waste of money. They'd be paying $15 more for the product than they'd be able to buy it for on Amazon if what they're claiming is true. Amazon has free two day shipping (IIRC) on the product. They'd get more for just collecting the money and then sending the people gift cards for the ten bucks so that they could order their own. They'd get 2.5 products instead of one if they did it that way and they'd get free shipping to boot.
I'd say, "Well find out." But, well, the USPTO seems to be willing to rubber stamp a bunch of crap and the trend doesn't seem to indicate that it will be improving.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I too had the luxury of growing up with a great deal of exposure to other societies and, even as an adult, I continued to travel and broaden my horizons. I do not see the use of military or even killing to be unethical by default. I see depriving human rights to their citizens as a far greater ethical violation. I see the taking of land and people (Tibet) as an ethical deficit that can't be overcome. (I see the same stain on America with their treatment of the natives.) In that case I will note that America has come a long ways at repairing those damages though I'd like to see them do more.
I see allowing/causing 15 to 45 million to die in a famine to be unethical. I see shooting your citizens and billing the family for the bullet to be unethical. I see these as far greater violations of ethics than deposing a homicidal maniac that violated a cease fire. I see those as far greater ethics violations than entering a country, with their permission, and helping them to get rid of a group of openly evil terrorists. You can see it how you want but I disagree and I believe that any realistic measurement is going to come out in my favor.
It seems likely that the only controlling attempt they seem to be going for is that it may result in a lower crime rate because people may act differently if they know they're being watched and/or recorded. Which you could easily say is controlling though I am under the impression you mean on a grander scale than that.
I can appreciate where you're coming from. I can even see where your views are logical conclusions as to what it might be. However, without anything more substantial to go on I don't arrive at that conclusion. There just doesn't seem to be a grand scheme of things like that taking place even in countries such as the UK where the use of CCTV by the government is quite common.
To me it seems that the goal is as stated, it is to monitor and to retroactively help solve crimes. Inasmuch as it changes behaviors I think that's a side effect and not the goal. I believe there are studies that indicate that we change our behavior if we know we're being monitored.
Do governments want to control us? Well, sure. They want us to be law abiding and productive citizens. Other than some notable exceptions I don't see them really trying to control us to the point where they're running roughshod over our rights to the point where we truly have none or that there is a cabal of politicians who are attempting to put us into a state where they are extracting our wealth and labor or anything. It just seems unlikely for that to be the case in all but a small number of countries.
Could it be? Absolutely. I can't even fault someone for thinking that it is like that. I can see that as being a logical conclusion that one could come to. I can see a reasoned approach that would result in thinking that. It may seem naive to you but it seems that my beliefs are more likely to me. I do hope you're not correct.
I really do hope that you're not correct. I do hope that openness in government, free press, and free speech prevent that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, they can still vote in some states.
Hmm... I guess I can see where people would want to recognize the difference between those. With the Wikipedia argument/usage of the terms interchangeably adding to the obfuscation and the insistence of some who use that and their own terminology or experiences as showing the lack of distinction it appears to be a lot like the "your DSL box is not a MODEM" argument. When you put it that way I can see a distinction that I'd not considered so, thanks.
Alright. That made me chuckle.
To fan the flames, another good one was the advent of "Free Speech Zones" in the political arena. In a twist of fate, it just so happens that the idea was first used by the Democrats. It is amazing how quickly people forget or are willing to be blindly partisan. There is a reason why I don't typically vote for anyone with either of the two major parties' abbreviations behind their name.
Yes, I'm aware that I am throwing my vote away in that my candidates will almost never be elected but that is my "protest vote" and I engage in it most every time and have for years. So seldom has a candidate impressed me enough to vote for them that I vote simply to vote against them. Again, in my mind at least, there is a vast difference between the two.
This is the internet. I'm afraid you're shit out of luck. ;)
(Trying Opera, again. I used it before Firefox. Someone mentioned extensions in another thread so I installed it again. So far it is pretty speedy.)
Anyhow, I'd be interested in a site where logic rules the day and the topic was technology. I'd like something similar to what I recall Slashdot as having been. I am slightly worried that I am remembering Slashdot of yore through the haze of rose colored glasses though.
I am inclined to agree with the former though I can see a case being made for the latter. It seems to me that it would have been around the time when they decided they could regulate someone growing wheat because not growing it was affecting commerce across the several states which is an absurd abuse. I'd have to go over the case again and familiarize myself with it but that, while that seems like a likely time for the tipping point there has to have been a change in attitude somewhere that preceded that. Well, it seems likely to me that the change in attitude preceded that.
It's pretty sad, really.
The article indicates that they are the police and it goes without saying that the police are there to serve both companies and the people. We could argue the point of their ability or willingness to serve but, again, that's hardly the point. The point was that it was, and remains, an invalid complaint.
You know that's not a valid complaint, right?
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is legal and common sense.
The two are not the same.
Your moral values have nothing to do with the amount of taxes you owe.
Yeah but they make an excellent hot sauce.
Mmm... Wahabi peas.
I wasn't aware that there are Bin Laden truthers who don't believe that he is dead. Curiouser and curiouser...
As to passing through metal detectors, who really cares, after all anyone that can't afford a real gun from illegal sources isn't going to be going into the areas 'protected' by metal detectors.
Umm... Court?
I can't really pin point exactly when it happened but, at some point, things changed. When the Constitution was authored it was a list of enumerated powers - it was a list of things that the government had the power to do. It has become, in practice, a list of things the government can't do (meaning that they think they can do anything not specifically prohibited). The differences between those two are vast and important.
This makes more sense. Thank you. It seems to be that an application that takes care to run simultaneously across multiple cores and/or multiple CPUs would be concurrent. Assuming I'm understanding properly.
That makes some sense, thanks.
Sorry to bug you but Wikipedia (and my own thinking) indicate that the terms are interchangeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_(programming)
Could you take the time to explain the difference for me? If you don't have the time then don't worry about it. If you do have the time it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, either way.
(or god help you if someone's nephew actually "knew" Access)
FTFY ;)
I may well be wrong but I tend to think of censorship not as preventing someone from speaking but, rather, preventing someone from hearing.
I for one will NEVER use a HTML 5 browser or any other technology for this single reason
That seems... Unlikely... I don't believe you but I do wish you luck.
PET? That was mine.
Why are you paying 2.5 times the price for the same device listed on Amazon?
The link is a legitimate link and a valuable link. You really can buy them for $10 on Amazon - new. This whole thing is starting to reek of a scam or, at least, a waste of money. They'd be paying $15 more for the product than they'd be able to buy it for on Amazon if what they're claiming is true. Amazon has free two day shipping (IIRC) on the product. They'd get more for just collecting the money and then sending the people gift cards for the ten bucks so that they could order their own. They'd get 2.5 products instead of one if they did it that way and they'd get free shipping to boot.
I'd say, "Well find out." But, well, the USPTO seems to be willing to rubber stamp a bunch of crap and the trend doesn't seem to indicate that it will be improving.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I too had the luxury of growing up with a great deal of exposure to other societies and, even as an adult, I continued to travel and broaden my horizons. I do not see the use of military or even killing to be unethical by default. I see depriving human rights to their citizens as a far greater ethical violation. I see the taking of land and people (Tibet) as an ethical deficit that can't be overcome. (I see the same stain on America with their treatment of the natives.) In that case I will note that America has come a long ways at repairing those damages though I'd like to see them do more.
I see allowing/causing 15 to 45 million to die in a famine to be unethical. I see shooting your citizens and billing the family for the bullet to be unethical. I see these as far greater violations of ethics than deposing a homicidal maniac that violated a cease fire. I see those as far greater ethics violations than entering a country, with their permission, and helping them to get rid of a group of openly evil terrorists. You can see it how you want but I disagree and I believe that any realistic measurement is going to come out in my favor.
It seems likely that the only controlling attempt they seem to be going for is that it may result in a lower crime rate because people may act differently if they know they're being watched and/or recorded. Which you could easily say is controlling though I am under the impression you mean on a grander scale than that.
I can appreciate where you're coming from. I can even see where your views are logical conclusions as to what it might be. However, without anything more substantial to go on I don't arrive at that conclusion. There just doesn't seem to be a grand scheme of things like that taking place even in countries such as the UK where the use of CCTV by the government is quite common.
To me it seems that the goal is as stated, it is to monitor and to retroactively help solve crimes. Inasmuch as it changes behaviors I think that's a side effect and not the goal. I believe there are studies that indicate that we change our behavior if we know we're being monitored.
Do governments want to control us? Well, sure. They want us to be law abiding and productive citizens. Other than some notable exceptions I don't see them really trying to control us to the point where they're running roughshod over our rights to the point where we truly have none or that there is a cabal of politicians who are attempting to put us into a state where they are extracting our wealth and labor or anything. It just seems unlikely for that to be the case in all but a small number of countries.
Could it be? Absolutely. I can't even fault someone for thinking that it is like that. I can see that as being a logical conclusion that one could come to. I can see a reasoned approach that would result in thinking that. It may seem naive to you but it seems that my beliefs are more likely to me. I do hope you're not correct.
I really do hope that you're not correct. I do hope that openness in government, free press, and free speech prevent that.