It's only when you get to the point of spending £60 a bottle that Champagne becomes worthwhile. The majority really don't have a clue.
Glad I never took the time to appreciate what makes champagne 'worthwhile'. To think, if I really took the time to appreciate something I enjoy, I wouldn't be able to afford it anymore.
The Geneva Convention even specifies the status of non-uniformed combatants; they have no rights and may be executed on the spot. I'd say in light of that, Guantanamo detainees have been treated with far more compassion than they legally deserve. After a thorough no-holds-barred interrogation, when I was certain they were of no more intelligence value, all I'd give them is a blindfold and a cigarette
It's heartening to know that you hold yourself to such high moral standards.
What rights are you waiving? The police still have to have a valid suspicion to stop you, which is the first one that comes to mind.
In Pennsylvania, they have an 'implied-consent' clause. In that state, if you are driving, it suggests that you have already given consent to things such as drug tests when normally they would require some sort of court action.
If you refuse a test, you lose your license automatically, even before you are convicted of any crime.
How is a campaign donation a trampling of someone's rights? What is a person being blocked from doing because someone else has made a publicly viewable campaign donation? Be specific.
When a politician's means of becoming elected (money) is provided by a sole source, and is stable over a long enough period (their career), provided that the politician does what the provider wants, then what incentive does the politician have to listen to anyone else?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Of course, that isn't really followed, but just because it isn't followed doesn't mean that what the government is doing is right either.
Foreign nation pulls bad foreign movie in favour of local movie. Film starring Chow-Yun Fat at 11.
Seriously, could this be less of an issue, it's still playing in 3D cinema's. It's not censorship, after seeing avatar I'd rather watch a film about Confucius and I cant speak Mandarin (or Cantonese).
More like non-troversy
What you would rather watch doesn't factor into it when the government does it.
Imagine for just one second if the US government decided that a Bollywood film had been here 'long enough' and then had it pulled from theaters.
Again, your taste in film has nothing to do with this because you are prohibited from making the decision in the first place.
That's a very odd thing to be puzzled about. Presumably, being in harmony with nature, they have a very good diet and look after their bodies. Do you also wonder why animals have such good teeth, even though they don't have toothbrushes?
The concept of natural harmony is simply reproducing as fast as the death rate. I did wonder about animals having good teeth, until I remembered that most animals don't live beyond 10-20 years.
The fibrous tissues of plants helps clean the teeth of herbivores. Carnivores don't get much sugar, and the ripping and tearing also provides a cleaning action. Rodents naturally don't worry about decay since their teeth form faster than they could decay.
Harmony with nature is just a human concept that relates to our perception of the current situation.
Because the law doesn't say copyrights are eternal. Therefore you cannot milk something indefinitely.
If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10^100 years our cowards on the Supreme Court would still say it was constitutional because it fit the definition of 'limited time'. even if that time would be some time after the heat death of the freaking universe.
People thought I was nuts for even attempting to walk there... suggesting that I should go rent a car.
This is an interesting story that I might use in my personal cause celebre. I believe that in the United States we have a right to travel. The Government suggests that by driving, you implicitly agree to waive certain rights. Due to the nature of 'travel' in the US, since it is effectively impossible to not travel by a method which limits your rights, then the governments claim that you do not have a right to travel by car or air (or train, or bike as I have also heard claim) to be invalid.
Exercising your Rights should not force you to surrender others.
That you are legally unable to walk, and thus travel without waiving your rights, it provides some backup for my claim.
If their data is stored in another country, I'm not sure the U.S. could get that info without permission of another government.
Or another more important question:
What if the US engages in a data sharing exchange with another government. You show us your database, and we will show you ours.
Suddenly you have the UK monitoring US citizens w/o 4th amendment protections, and you have the US monitoring UK citizens without their privacy protections and then they exchange the data.
Somewhere along the line, Rights were violated. But who did the violation?
Your use of 'and' here amuses me - it makes me think that a Russian painted Mig shooting across the border would be just fine so long as they had a nice chat with someone on the radio whilst they did it.
If I was in contact with the ATC and following his instructions, why would they care about the color of my jet?
Except that's not how phone cameras generally work AIUI. They take images from the CMOS camera, possibly after using its built-in downsampling support, feed them through the CPU, and output them to the display that way.
That's probably going to be a big point, if Apple and others DID implement the preview in the manner described in the patent, with the specialized circuitry, I can definately see how Kodak has a claim.
And if not, and they implemented like you said they generally do, then that's probably the defense they will use.
Plus, it's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted. I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself, "Man, I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed."
You know that a reaction like that is EXACTLY why someone would invent it and patent it.
If EVERYONE agrees that there is a problem, and then someone goes out and invents something that fixes that problem, isn't that exactly what the patent process is meant to encourage?
If the bandwidth available is insufficient for the task, then no amount of additional buffering will help. Bigger buffers will reduce the frequency at which the buffer empties, but will also simply take more time to fill back up. The ratio of "Buffering..." to movie watching is more-or-less constant, for a given bit of media on a given connection.
Your first statement is incorrect. If the buffer is the size of the total, if you let the buffer fill then you will have no problems even if you receive at 1 kbps.
Your buffer is filling at a rate D and your buffer is emptying at a rate P, If you want playback to be uninterrupted you need to determine how much initial buffer you need so that by the conclusion of the video your buffer is empty. It's a very simple problem to solve.
The solution only fails when rate D is inconstant and decreases at some time between t(o) and t(f). (so that the average rate is something D ) However, it can be solved by selecting a buffer size that is larger and allowing it to fill to a sufficient level prior to commencing playback.
Filling the buffer in the first place may take longer, but that's the point. Allowing a person with a poor connection to use a larger buffer and fill it prior to starting playback will solve the problem.
Because having you blood drained and replaced with embalming fluid and you body covered in makeup and posed like we do today commonly is perfectly rational.
It is rational. It gives people time to travel (sometimes long distances) to consol one another on the passing of a friend. The makeup, the embalming fluid, it's all there for the purposes of the viewing. The funeral is for the living.
Irrational is leaving a body to decompose and make the gathering uncomfortable for the sake of being the 'thoroughly modern nihilist' who doesn't follow those lame and old-fashioned traditions because they are soooo much cooler than that.
The officer searching you probably searches thousands of people a day. It's not like he's going to go through your data files and memorize all the important business/legal documents and then report them to your competitors. The policy document indicates that all electronic searches take place in your presence and with a supervisor present.
Allow me to introduce you to the basis for the majority of my privacy opinions: "Lack of feasibility to infringe on a large scale does not make the initial power just."
Or in simple terms: "Just because they can't now, doesn't mean they won't later."
What you have is a herd mentality that follows the same logic as, "That wolf can't eat all the sheep". If I give ONE person in the country the authority to execute unwarranted searches at their whim, simply because they cannot search EVERYONE does not make the authority I granted just.
ALWAYS consider the way in which a power may be abused, because eventually, it will be.
Thirty years ago if you suggested that the government could monitor and process all of the phone conversations in the United States simultaneously it wouldn't have been possible. However, with conversations being digitized and the development of new technology, it is becoming possible, and in 20-30 years? Just because they can't now, doesn't mean they won't later.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only when you get to the point of spending £60 a bottle that Champagne becomes worthwhile. The majority really don't have a clue.
Glad I never took the time to appreciate what makes champagne 'worthwhile'. To think, if I really took the time to appreciate something I enjoy, I wouldn't be able to afford it anymore.
The Geneva Convention even specifies the status of non-uniformed combatants; they have no rights and may be executed on the spot. I'd say in light of that, Guantanamo detainees have been treated with far more compassion than they legally deserve. After a thorough no-holds-barred interrogation, when I was certain they were of no more intelligence value, all I'd give them is a blindfold and a cigarette
It's heartening to know that you hold yourself to such high moral standards.
What rights are you waiving? The police still have to have a valid suspicion to stop you, which is the first one that comes to mind.
In Pennsylvania, they have an 'implied-consent' clause. In that state, if you are driving, it suggests that you have already given consent to things such as drug tests when normally they would require some sort of court action.
If you refuse a test, you lose your license automatically, even before you are convicted of any crime.
Yes, someone explain how many of them would fit into the library of congress.
A metric assload.
How is a campaign donation a trampling of someone's rights? What is a person being blocked from doing because someone else has made a publicly viewable campaign donation? Be specific.
When a politician's means of becoming elected (money) is provided by a sole source, and is stable over a long enough period (their career), provided that the politician does what the provider wants, then what incentive does the politician have to listen to anyone else?
Really?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Of course, that isn't really followed, but just because it isn't followed doesn't mean that what the government is doing is right either.
Because that resource is, at least for a looong time, virtually endless.
Another way to put it:
Solar energy will literally last until the end of the Earth (and then some).
They might be more concerned about comparisons to this group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_people
Foreign nation pulls bad foreign movie in favour of local movie. Film starring Chow-Yun Fat at 11.
Seriously, could this be less of an issue, it's still playing in 3D cinema's. It's not censorship, after seeing avatar I'd rather watch a film about Confucius and I cant speak Mandarin (or Cantonese).
More like non-troversy
What you would rather watch doesn't factor into it when the government does it.
Imagine for just one second if the US government decided that a Bollywood film had been here 'long enough' and then had it pulled from theaters.
Again, your taste in film has nothing to do with this because you are prohibited from making the decision in the first place.
That's a very odd thing to be puzzled about. Presumably, being in harmony with nature, they have a very good diet and look after their bodies. Do you also wonder why animals have such good teeth, even though they don't have toothbrushes?
The concept of natural harmony is simply reproducing as fast as the death rate. I did wonder about animals having good teeth, until I remembered that most animals don't live beyond 10-20 years.
The fibrous tissues of plants helps clean the teeth of herbivores.
Carnivores don't get much sugar, and the ripping and tearing also provides a cleaning action.
Rodents naturally don't worry about decay since their teeth form faster than they could decay.
Harmony with nature is just a human concept that relates to our perception of the current situation.
They are the only modern society that has survived peak oil.
Wait... You mean... That means...
OK, who was the wise guy who stole my 'Handbook for The Recently Deceased'?
Because the law doesn't say copyrights are eternal. Therefore you cannot milk something indefinitely.
If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10^100 years our cowards on the Supreme Court would still say it was constitutional because it fit the definition of 'limited time'. even if that time would be some time after the heat death of the freaking universe.
People thought I was nuts for even attempting to walk there... suggesting that I should go rent a car.
This is an interesting story that I might use in my personal cause celebre. I believe that in the United States we have a right to travel. The Government suggests that by driving, you implicitly agree to waive certain rights. Due to the nature of 'travel' in the US, since it is effectively impossible to not travel by a method which limits your rights, then the governments claim that you do not have a right to travel by car or air (or train, or bike as I have also heard claim) to be invalid.
Exercising your Rights should not force you to surrender others.
That you are legally unable to walk, and thus travel without waiving your rights, it provides some backup for my claim.
If their data is stored in another country, I'm not sure the U.S. could get that info without permission of another government.
Or another more important question:
What if the US engages in a data sharing exchange with another government. You show us your database, and we will show you ours.
Suddenly you have the UK monitoring US citizens w/o 4th amendment protections, and you have the US monitoring UK citizens without their privacy protections and then they exchange the data.
Somewhere along the line, Rights were violated. But who did the violation?
Why the hell would they recommend counseling for a non-violent and non-criminal act?
Conseling for the fact that your 'education' is supposedly coming from these idiots.
If you're worried about fuel usage get an F22. Supersonic cruise really helps the mileage.
Assuming I could buy an F-22 at all, and at cost...
I'd probably STILL spend less money than if I flew this russian jet at full afterburner 100% of the time.
Your use of 'and' here amuses me - it makes me think that a Russian painted Mig shooting across the border would be just fine so long as they had a nice chat with someone on the radio whilst they did it.
If I was in contact with the ATC and following his instructions, why would they care about the color of my jet?
Yet every driver that kills a cyclist or motorcyclists says, "I did not see them."
I'd say that people DON'T pay attention to what they need to.
Do you expect a driver that kills a cyclist to say, "Yeah, I saw them. And I'd do it again too! Nya!" ?
Except that's not how phone cameras generally work AIUI. They take images from the CMOS camera, possibly after using its built-in downsampling support, feed them through the CPU, and output them to the display that way.
That's probably going to be a big point, if Apple and others DID implement the preview in the manner described in the patent, with the specialized circuitry, I can definately see how Kodak has a claim.
And if not, and they implemented like you said they generally do, then that's probably the defense they will use.
Plus, it's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted. I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself, "Man, I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed."
You know that a reaction like that is EXACTLY why someone would invent it and patent it.
If EVERYONE agrees that there is a problem, and then someone goes out and invents something that fixes that problem, isn't that exactly what the patent process is meant to encourage?
Thanks, I hate waiting.
It's not good, certainly, but not in the same league as arbitrary imprisonment, torture or executions
You might say that, but I never heard you.
If the bandwidth available is insufficient for the task, then no amount of additional buffering will help. Bigger buffers will reduce the frequency at which the buffer empties, but will also simply take more time to fill back up. The ratio of "Buffering..." to movie watching is more-or-less constant, for a given bit of media on a given connection.
Your first statement is incorrect. If the buffer is the size of the total, if you let the buffer fill then you will have no problems even if you receive at 1 kbps.
Your buffer is filling at a rate D and your buffer is emptying at a rate P, If you want playback to be uninterrupted you need to determine how much initial buffer you need so that by the conclusion of the video your buffer is empty. It's a very simple problem to solve.
The solution only fails when rate D is inconstant and decreases at some time between t(o) and t(f). (so that the average rate is something D ) However, it can be solved by selecting a buffer size that is larger and allowing it to fill to a sufficient level prior to commencing playback.
Filling the buffer in the first place may take longer, but that's the point. Allowing a person with a poor connection to use a larger buffer and fill it prior to starting playback will solve the problem.
Because having you blood drained and replaced with embalming fluid and you body covered in makeup and posed like we do today commonly is perfectly rational.
It is rational. It gives people time to travel (sometimes long distances) to consol one another on the passing of a friend. The makeup, the embalming fluid, it's all there for the purposes of the viewing. The funeral is for the living.
Irrational is leaving a body to decompose and make the gathering uncomfortable for the sake of being the 'thoroughly modern nihilist' who doesn't follow those lame and old-fashioned traditions because they are soooo much cooler than that.
The officer searching you probably searches thousands of people a day. It's not like he's going to go through your data files and memorize all the important business/legal documents and then report them to your competitors. The policy document indicates that all electronic searches take place in your presence and with a supervisor present.
Allow me to introduce you to the basis for the majority of my privacy opinions: "Lack of feasibility to infringe on a large scale does not make the initial power just."
Or in simple terms: "Just because they can't now, doesn't mean they won't later."
What you have is a herd mentality that follows the same logic as, "That wolf can't eat all the sheep". If I give ONE person in the country the authority to execute unwarranted searches at their whim, simply because they cannot search EVERYONE does not make the authority I granted just.
ALWAYS consider the way in which a power may be abused, because eventually, it will be.
Thirty years ago if you suggested that the government could monitor and process all of the phone conversations in the United States simultaneously it wouldn't have been possible. However, with conversations being digitized and the development of new technology, it is becoming possible, and in 20-30 years? Just because they can't now, doesn't mean they won't later.