I believe they also had some favorable regulations for banking/lending institutions for quite a while. I'm not sure if they still do. You see a bunch of credit card companies out of there - as well as insurance. I want to say that there were favorable laws for insurance as well but that might actually just be because of the process of incorporating there.
There are lots of people who are citizens of the EU countries that don't want to be part of the Union. With any such thing, you really can't please everyone. Sometimes you get very vocal opponents to it. That's why your assumption about the UK wasn't correct. Yeah, the UK is in the news with BREXIT but that means others will talk about it as well.
Ah well. You know what they say about 'assume.' However, I'm pretty sure it doesn't make an ass out of me if *you* do the assuming.;-)
A shame? You look at it wrong. Not at all - that was a brilliant bit of baiting. You might even say that the AC is a Master Baiter.
Trolls are gonna troll. I appreciate reading the replies to a good troll. Sometimes they make you think. Sometimes they're even right. Hell, sometimes it's the right thing to do.
I'm pretty old. I think they're pulling your chain. The only thing I can remember is a paper company by that name. I'm not sure if they were bought out by IP or GP, however. I'm mostly familiar with IP and GP, I've bought land from both of their remaining entities.
Hmm... I feel compelled to say this but I really shouldn't have to.
I'm okay with a business not being shut down so long as they don't break the law. I'm not in favor of them just arbitrarily shutting shit down (or jailing people) unless they've broken a law.
So, it wouldn't be inaccurate for me to say that yes, yes I am okay with that. I don't like it and would seek to change the laws - if I had the power to do so. But, I'm pretty sure there's no "sleazy, bullshit, I don't like you" type of law out there. We can't just punish people unless they've done something wrong. Wrong, in this case, is the letter of the law. It's not even the spirit of the law, it's the letter. And no, don't blame me - I didn't make that rule up but it's the rules of the game.
There's also the innocent until proven guilty thing and that's kind of important. So, am I okay with it? Sure, I guess. I'm okay with law-abiding businesses operating within the letter of the law, yes. Change the laws if you feel they need changing. We don't just arbitrarily punish based on a strong dislike. Well, we shouldn't.
You skipped the option for "less waste" and went right to "never any waste."
If you were ever curious as to why people ignore you or call you names, that might be a good indicator.
Do note: I've not offered a position or opinion on anything other than your inability to comprehend complexities involving more than binary choices. "But it's not perfect!" is retarded.
While it's a philosophical matter, I do not know if we even have true random. We have unpredictable pretty well covered and we have some things (like radioactive decay) that aren't yet understood well enough to be predicted. There are suitable sources for unpredictable results but I'm not really sure that we've got true random. I think that, in the few areas where we do have something close, that it's actually a lack of understanding on our part that makes us think that it is random.
Then, they don't want random - not in the sense that lots of people seem to think. If everyone were randomly selected then a near 50% would go through the line to get the extra searching. They don't want that - they might want something like 1:20 to go through that line, so what they really wanted was something that was randomly selecting someone 1:20 (or whatever) and not something that was random 1:1 like a lot of people posting in this thread seem to be assuming.
At the same time, this needs to not have a discernible pattern. Otherwise, the supposed terrorists would know that they'd have some room to spare if they had seen someone be selected for the extra search. They'd have, on average, a minimal of 10 non-extra search slots following each one, though I think the math would show that it would be closer to 20. I'll say 10 just to keep it short and not quibble over the details.
The assumptions are *NOT* being made by the poster I'm responding to, by the way. Sadly, I have to make that clear.
They're not randomly selecting if a person is going to go through the line so much as they're randomly selecting which, of X number of people, person is going through the line. I didn't feel like making multiple posts so I'm stuffing the two together and calling it good. I'm lazy today.
And, on a personal note - not really related to this, they don't want random at all. Random is FUCKING STUPID! They damned well should be profiling. They should be selecting people based on certain criteria. They should be giving extra scrutiny to people who appear nervous, appear to be traveling alone, are not carrying much baggage, bought a one way trip, etc... That might mean that they're even picking people who appear to be of a certain religious persuasion or color. Security really doesn't give two shits about being politically correct, now does it? No, it does not.
> Human traffic patterns already have such a random element to them
You'd think so. It's not. Neither vehicular nor pedestrian traffic is random. There is order to that chaos, it's just not easy to find and the herd is easily spooked.
I lack the time and energy to get into the gritty details but I've gone into this quite a bit in the past. Feel free to scrounge through my posting history if you want. I modeled traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) and I'm pretty sure that it is chaotic but not truly random.
It may appear random, it is not. How to describe it quickly.
Okay, try this... Go to your nearest mall or department store - you might want to go to a few. Watch the people when they enter. If given a choice, they will (almost invariably) opt to go to the right. Stores, those who wish to curate the experience, will actually work to *force* you to go to the right. For example, they'll often have the bakery to the right - and lots of colorful objects. Why? Lots of reasons but because it's not *always* true that people go to the right - but it's true (far) more often than not.
It doesn't seem to matter if the person favors one hand over the other, or is "goofy footed" or not, nor does it seem to have much cultural variation. Chances are REALLY high that you'll go to the right. The odds favor it so heavily that it's the assumed default and they'll literally make changes to a store's layout to force compliance - with some notable exceptions that are too long to detail here but include things like a pharmacy within the same store. They want you on that route because they don't want you to be able to quickly grab your needed/most often purchased items quickly and then leave.
It's a lot of data. It's very chaotic. It's not random - not even remotely. Done well, you won't even notice. It's even true at outdoor events, in large auditoriums, and in sporting arenas. We don't know why this is true but, unless the data has changed in the past eight years, we humans are particularly fond of going to the right. There are a variety of other things to "count on" as a whole but it's not something I'm going to delve into in this post. I lack time and energy. That's one (of many) examples.
There are many patterns and near-universal truths but you have to step back and make observations and have a whole lot of data before some of them become apparent. By a whole lot of data, I mean a whole lot of data. By the end of the 1990s it was to the point where we were using disk arrays that were a full terabyte in size. That might not seem like a lot but, going by estimates with your UUID, look at the time period that was and think about how much a TB really is. (It was also not very cheap back then.)
They're referencing something known as "fiduciary duty" which, as near as I can tell, nobody actually understands that comments about it. They're convinced that it means a company must make as much profit as possible and at any cost. I am not quite sure where this notion comes from but, I can assure you, no such regulations exist. Yes, there's a fiduciary duty. No, it's not even remotely like what people claim.
I really liked WinMX. There are still people happily running the old OpenNap servers, by the way. Of course, you didn't hear that from me. And by "still" I mean a few years ago, when I last checked. I've not actually bothered with it in a very, very long time.
Yup. There is a loss, it's called potential. It actually is a balance sheet item but hard to put an exact number to. It has lots of names, like "anticipated growth" or "market segment." But, it's there, it exists, and is as real as most anything. It's easy to ignore, easy to deny, and most pirates seem disinclined to be intellectually honest.
Yes, yes I do pirate. Worse, I've amply money to pay for things that I consume. I do have things like paid Netflix and Hulu subscriptions but I haven't used either in months. I'd probably pay handsomely for a service that combined it all and just charged me whatever and made it a functional site with a variety of options. I've gone into the details before but I don't think I'll bother with that tonight.
This is Slashdot. Not only would that be unlikely to hinder any of us for very long, we all have multiple devices and multiple browsers. I do mean all of us. A good half of us probably have a browser loaded onto something never meant to have a browser in the first place. Sure, it might be in plain text or we might need to use CURL but, damn it, we can still get our messages out.
A part of me wants to go pirating and have this browser hijack happen to me - just so that I have standing and can take it to court. I've got a few dollars, it'd be worth it to see the case play out. I even have some lawyer friends who will be more than happy to lend me a hand at reasonable costs.
I suppose I'll need to use Windows for that. 'Cause, good luck trying to lock my jailed browser. That's just not gonna work very well. Hell, if I double check --help, I'm pretty sure that any file I even *saved* while running it in a jail would be deleted when I closed it. Even if I saved them to a different directory. Hmm... I guess I could save them to a drive and then unmount the drive - I might be able to get past it that way.
At any rate, I've got CPU cycles and disk space. I suppose I could get a Windows VM up and running. Now, what to pirate? I suppose I'd have to pirate something popular and be really obvious about it. Dead Pool wasn't bad. I've got a friend in the distribution industry (and another in the theater industry) and two relatives who work in the production industry. I don't know how much help they'll give me but the guy who owns a couple of theaters has let me get away with a few interesting (not really piracy-related) things in the past.
Interesting... The site at the link you provided has something from BIZX (.info) at it. Curious, that. They're now our non-robotic overlords. I think this is the first time I've seen them in the wild.
Are you sure? I've seen that subject pop up in documentaries quite a few times. Each time, they've generally referenced the intended use which was to see ships at a distance. This includes climbing a tower (by whom, I do not recall) and watching the ships coming in from what would be over the horizon at ground level and too far away to be seen with the naked eye. I've seen this recounted, in a variety of ways, more than once.
The specifics, I do not necessarily recall but I may be thinking of the wrong person. The telescope was sort of invented by one guy and another one (Galileo maybe?) stomped off to get his name put on it. I don't recall the original inventor thinking of it as a toy, however. I could be mistaken and my memory is not that good. I watch documentaries, not as a scholastic pursuit but as a forum of entertainment. I really don't much care for anything else in video media format.
As an aside; that has made the 'net a great boon for me. I love the access and immediacy of all the documentaries. I've never really been into watching much of anything else. Dunno why, but there it is. I find them entertaining and enjoy them. As I said, it's not academic in nature. Any learning is incidental and not the intent.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they also had some favorable regulations for banking/lending institutions for quite a while. I'm not sure if they still do. You see a bunch of credit card companies out of there - as well as insurance. I want to say that there were favorable laws for insurance as well but that might actually just be because of the process of incorporating there.
There are lots of people who are citizens of the EU countries that don't want to be part of the Union. With any such thing, you really can't please everyone. Sometimes you get very vocal opponents to it. That's why your assumption about the UK wasn't correct. Yeah, the UK is in the news with BREXIT but that means others will talk about it as well.
Ah well. You know what they say about 'assume.' However, I'm pretty sure it doesn't make an ass out of me if *you* do the assuming. ;-)
A shame? You look at it wrong. Not at all - that was a brilliant bit of baiting. You might even say that the AC is a Master Baiter.
Trolls are gonna troll. I appreciate reading the replies to a good troll. Sometimes they make you think. Sometimes they're even right. Hell, sometimes it's the right thing to do.
I'm pretty old. I think they're pulling your chain. The only thing I can remember is a paper company by that name. I'm not sure if they were bought out by IP or GP, however. I'm mostly familiar with IP and GP, I've bought land from both of their remaining entities.
Hmm... I feel compelled to say this but I really shouldn't have to.
I'm okay with a business not being shut down so long as they don't break the law. I'm not in favor of them just arbitrarily shutting shit down (or jailing people) unless they've broken a law.
So, it wouldn't be inaccurate for me to say that yes, yes I am okay with that. I don't like it and would seek to change the laws - if I had the power to do so. But, I'm pretty sure there's no "sleazy, bullshit, I don't like you" type of law out there. We can't just punish people unless they've done something wrong. Wrong, in this case, is the letter of the law. It's not even the spirit of the law, it's the letter. And no, don't blame me - I didn't make that rule up but it's the rules of the game.
There's also the innocent until proven guilty thing and that's kind of important. So, am I okay with it? Sure, I guess. I'm okay with law-abiding businesses operating within the letter of the law, yes. Change the laws if you feel they need changing. We don't just arbitrarily punish based on a strong dislike. Well, we shouldn't.
You skipped the option for "less waste" and went right to "never any waste."
If you were ever curious as to why people ignore you or call you names, that might be a good indicator.
Do note: I've not offered a position or opinion on anything other than your inability to comprehend complexities involving more than binary choices. "But it's not perfect!" is retarded.
You should have checked for traps, n00b. Also, you probably get a racial bonus - it's your job to remind the DM.
Versus orcs, yes.
A couple of things to add to the above...
While it's a philosophical matter, I do not know if we even have true random. We have unpredictable pretty well covered and we have some things (like radioactive decay) that aren't yet understood well enough to be predicted. There are suitable sources for unpredictable results but I'm not really sure that we've got true random. I think that, in the few areas where we do have something close, that it's actually a lack of understanding on our part that makes us think that it is random.
Then, they don't want random - not in the sense that lots of people seem to think. If everyone were randomly selected then a near 50% would go through the line to get the extra searching. They don't want that - they might want something like 1:20 to go through that line, so what they really wanted was something that was randomly selecting someone 1:20 (or whatever) and not something that was random 1:1 like a lot of people posting in this thread seem to be assuming.
At the same time, this needs to not have a discernible pattern. Otherwise, the supposed terrorists would know that they'd have some room to spare if they had seen someone be selected for the extra search. They'd have, on average, a minimal of 10 non-extra search slots following each one, though I think the math would show that it would be closer to 20. I'll say 10 just to keep it short and not quibble over the details.
The assumptions are *NOT* being made by the poster I'm responding to, by the way. Sadly, I have to make that clear.
They're not randomly selecting if a person is going to go through the line so much as they're randomly selecting which, of X number of people, person is going through the line. I didn't feel like making multiple posts so I'm stuffing the two together and calling it good. I'm lazy today.
And, on a personal note - not really related to this, they don't want random at all. Random is FUCKING STUPID! They damned well should be profiling. They should be selecting people based on certain criteria. They should be giving extra scrutiny to people who appear nervous, appear to be traveling alone, are not carrying much baggage, bought a one way trip, etc... That might mean that they're even picking people who appear to be of a certain religious persuasion or color. Security really doesn't give two shits about being politically correct, now does it? No, it does not.
Alas, that's a subject for a different day.
> Human traffic patterns already have such a random element to them
You'd think so. It's not. Neither vehicular nor pedestrian traffic is random. There is order to that chaos, it's just not easy to find and the herd is easily spooked.
I lack the time and energy to get into the gritty details but I've gone into this quite a bit in the past. Feel free to scrounge through my posting history if you want. I modeled traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) and I'm pretty sure that it is chaotic but not truly random.
It may appear random, it is not. How to describe it quickly.
Okay, try this... Go to your nearest mall or department store - you might want to go to a few. Watch the people when they enter. If given a choice, they will (almost invariably) opt to go to the right. Stores, those who wish to curate the experience, will actually work to *force* you to go to the right. For example, they'll often have the bakery to the right - and lots of colorful objects. Why? Lots of reasons but because it's not *always* true that people go to the right - but it's true (far) more often than not.
It doesn't seem to matter if the person favors one hand over the other, or is "goofy footed" or not, nor does it seem to have much cultural variation. Chances are REALLY high that you'll go to the right. The odds favor it so heavily that it's the assumed default and they'll literally make changes to a store's layout to force compliance - with some notable exceptions that are too long to detail here but include things like a pharmacy within the same store. They want you on that route because they don't want you to be able to quickly grab your needed/most often purchased items quickly and then leave.
It's a lot of data. It's very chaotic. It's not random - not even remotely. Done well, you won't even notice. It's even true at outdoor events, in large auditoriums, and in sporting arenas. We don't know why this is true but, unless the data has changed in the past eight years, we humans are particularly fond of going to the right. There are a variety of other things to "count on" as a whole but it's not something I'm going to delve into in this post. I lack time and energy. That's one (of many) examples.
There are many patterns and near-universal truths but you have to step back and make observations and have a whole lot of data before some of them become apparent. By a whole lot of data, I mean a whole lot of data. By the end of the 1990s it was to the point where we were using disk arrays that were a full terabyte in size. That might not seem like a lot but, going by estimates with your UUID, look at the time period that was and think about how much a TB really is. (It was also not very cheap back then.)
Why?
Well... Hmm... I think the answer's in the lyrics.
You can't go to Constantinople,
'cause Constantinople's now Istanbul
and Istanbul was Constantinople.
Why? You'll have to find out from the Turks.
Are you sure that's MB and not Mb?
They're referencing something known as "fiduciary duty" which, as near as I can tell, nobody actually understands that comments about it. They're convinced that it means a company must make as much profit as possible and at any cost. I am not quite sure where this notion comes from but, I can assure you, no such regulations exist. Yes, there's a fiduciary duty. No, it's not even remotely like what people claim.
Nope. They all left. That means you got stuck with me. Sorry 'bout that.
I really liked WinMX. There are still people happily running the old OpenNap servers, by the way. Of course, you didn't hear that from me. And by "still" I mean a few years ago, when I last checked. I've not actually bothered with it in a very, very long time.
> Making or downloading a copy is generally not a criminal action.
Maybe - until you throw the DMCA on top of it. At that point, chances are, you're circumventing and that is, in itself, a criminal act.
This should not be read to say that I agree with the DMCA, it's just a statement as to the matter of legality.
Yup. There is a loss, it's called potential. It actually is a balance sheet item but hard to put an exact number to. It has lots of names, like "anticipated growth" or "market segment." But, it's there, it exists, and is as real as most anything. It's easy to ignore, easy to deny, and most pirates seem disinclined to be intellectually honest.
Yes, yes I do pirate. Worse, I've amply money to pay for things that I consume. I do have things like paid Netflix and Hulu subscriptions but I haven't used either in months. I'd probably pay handsomely for a service that combined it all and just charged me whatever and made it a functional site with a variety of options. I've gone into the details before but I don't think I'll bother with that tonight.
*whistles innocently*
http://john.bitsurge.net/publi...
(Add that to your blocklist - set to automatically update.)
This is Slashdot. Not only would that be unlikely to hinder any of us for very long, we all have multiple devices and multiple browsers. I do mean all of us. A good half of us probably have a browser loaded onto something never meant to have a browser in the first place. Sure, it might be in plain text or we might need to use CURL but, damn it, we can still get our messages out.
A part of me wants to go pirating and have this browser hijack happen to me - just so that I have standing and can take it to court. I've got a few dollars, it'd be worth it to see the case play out. I even have some lawyer friends who will be more than happy to lend me a hand at reasonable costs.
I suppose I'll need to use Windows for that. 'Cause, good luck trying to lock my jailed browser. That's just not gonna work very well. Hell, if I double check --help, I'm pretty sure that any file I even *saved* while running it in a jail would be deleted when I closed it. Even if I saved them to a different directory. Hmm... I guess I could save them to a drive and then unmount the drive - I might be able to get past it that way.
At any rate, I've got CPU cycles and disk space. I suppose I could get a Windows VM up and running. Now, what to pirate? I suppose I'd have to pirate something popular and be really obvious about it. Dead Pool wasn't bad. I've got a friend in the distribution industry (and another in the theater industry) and two relatives who work in the production industry. I don't know how much help they'll give me but the guy who owns a couple of theaters has let me get away with a few interesting (not really piracy-related) things in the past.
Interesting... The site at the link you provided has something from BIZX (.info) at it. Curious, that. They're now our non-robotic overlords. I think this is the first time I've seen them in the wild.
Are you sure? I've seen that subject pop up in documentaries quite a few times. Each time, they've generally referenced the intended use which was to see ships at a distance. This includes climbing a tower (by whom, I do not recall) and watching the ships coming in from what would be over the horizon at ground level and too far away to be seen with the naked eye. I've seen this recounted, in a variety of ways, more than once.
The specifics, I do not necessarily recall but I may be thinking of the wrong person. The telescope was sort of invented by one guy and another one (Galileo maybe?) stomped off to get his name put on it. I don't recall the original inventor thinking of it as a toy, however. I could be mistaken and my memory is not that good. I watch documentaries, not as a scholastic pursuit but as a forum of entertainment. I really don't much care for anything else in video media format.
As an aside; that has made the 'net a great boon for me. I love the access and immediacy of all the documentaries. I've never really been into watching much of anything else. Dunno why, but there it is. I find them entertaining and enjoy them. As I said, it's not academic in nature. Any learning is incidental and not the intent.
Yandex, yes those guys, does this sort of thing for free. I've got my email setup with their mx records and it works out well.
You can send 'em mine. I'll even email 'em back.
Nor would Obama's. Or Hillary's.