I rip them to MP4 or MKV [...] I don't share them
Yet, if you do this in the US, you're violating the DMCA. (Not sure what applicable laws you're violating outside the US, though I'm sure there are plenty.)
53 posts • joined 27 Oct 2011
Yet, if you do this in the US, you're violating the DMCA. (Not sure what applicable laws you're violating outside the US, though I'm sure there are plenty.)
Yes, all Abrahamic (and many other) religions are deeply flawed. We all know the Abrahamic God was a vindictive little shit. But you only need to compare the figureheads of Christianity and Islam, Jesus vs. Muhammad, to see the stark differences in how these religions shape its followers.
Please find me a verse in the new testament, or in any other text from the era, where Jesus goes around killing those that don't believe he is the son of god. Just one.
Muhammad, on the other hand, is all about dispatching pesky non-believers. Next to abusing young girls and subjugating women, it seems to be his favorite hobby.
There is simply no comparison. Islam is by far the most violent and bigoted religion [that's widely practiced] in our modern world.
Yes. I'm one of those atheists that will smear Christianity, or any religion, every chance I get.
But I'm also able to clearly see that Islam and Christianity are not even close when it comes to violence in the modern day.
You'll be hard pressed to find a verse in the new testament that says anything remotely close to:
Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?"
(Since the Qur'an prescribes death as the punishment for the crimes, by saying "What could be more wicked", the Qur'an is applying the death penalty for this.)
Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"
And from the Hadtih:
Bukhari (4:241) - "Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority."
Remember your history. Remember the barbaric actions of this beloved Muhammad. The "perfect" Muslim.
Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Anyone that claims this is extremely ignorant about Islam, deluded beyond belief, or outright lying.
Winston Churchill said it best with:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy."
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
Except in this case, the Islamic faith actively encourages strong reaction to those that blaspheme their faith.
Look at the lashings Raif Badawi, and many others that speak out, receive. Other are put to death.
Violence, even murder, as a response to blasphemy of Islamic faith is not unusual.
Like many other major religions, Islamic faith is a faith deeply rooted in bigotry and violence. However, while other major religions have generally softened over time, Islam is currently trending the other way.
And no, in case you're going to go there, it is not Islamophobia point out the this issues with the faith. I'm sick and tired of people constantly spouting on about how Islam is a peaceful religion. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but no, Islam is not a peaceful religion.
"You do realise that multimedia educational sites exist now?"
Where's the evidence that sitting children in front of PCs and/or tablets result in better education?
I selected the school my child goes to specifically because the students don't use PCs/tablets in the classroom. It happens to be the top performing public school in the city, out-performs most of the more desirable private schools, has a waiting list larger than the student body -- and all on a shoe-string budget.
$1.5bn should be directed to training and hiring better teachers, creating a better curriculum, and to support staff that can properly manage problem students so they don't interfere with the education of others.
"Unfortunately you get no benefit from the traffic and its costing you money. "
Your customers are paying you for internet connectivity, and they expect to be able to access services, like Netflix. Is that payment of "no benefit" to you? Did you expect them not to use the service they are paying for?
"all of this traffic from Netflix going across your pipes to another peering partner"
Netflix will offer you free caching proxies to alleviate that traffic. They will even offer direct peering in some cases. The question is, should you be able to throttle Netflix to force them into a separate peering arrangement, then charge Netflix for that f#ckery?
Re: "because they haven't been paid once"
Er, yes they have -- or does my $80 per month to my ISP not count as a payment in your book?
Re: "direct peering arrangement"...
That's simply another way of saying: "We'll throttle traffic on your current transit provider unless you pony up for a 'direct peering arrangement'" -- and that's _exactly_ what happens.
"It’s like bringing your own cockroach to McDonalds, then making a complaint about their hygiene"
No, it's more like dropping a bus load of customers off at McDonalds, but McDonalds insists that they will serve the passengers at a slower rate than everyone else, unless the bus driver pays McDonalds an inconvenience charge.
How is Netflix getting a free ride? They pay for their connection, just as you pay for yours. Why should they pay your ISP when they are already paying theirs?
Please read, and understand, this:
The idea that warming has stopped in the last 15 years is a complete fallacy.
"That sir is faith. Not science"
Same is said about evolution through natural selection. We can't predict exactly what evolution will produce -- there are far too many variables -- but we know environmental pressures will shape an organism's DNA.
Just because you don't understand the nuances of a given theory, doesn't make it wrong. AGW _is_ falsifiable. Much like attempts to falsify evolution by natural selection, so far _every_ attempt to falsify AGW (as should be done -- every hypothesis and theory must be vigorously and continuously tested as new data arises) have only served to validate the theory.
There are many articles out there that claim to have falsified evolution by natural selection, but every single one of them have failed -- even if the original authors refuse to admit defeat. (Often the original authors do admit defeat, but ID zealots keep regurgitating the old, inaccurate, information.) This _exact_ same thing holds true with AWG.
"there has been no warming"
and Glenn Tamblyn's response to Roy W. Spencer's tantrum (the basis of your position):
Just like the "Evolution through natural selection people" bully and intimidate anybody that believes the earth is 6000 years old?
There is FAR more bullying and intimidation coming from both the intelligent design crowd and AGW deniers than any scientists. Explaining how any why your belief is wrong is not "bullying", no matter how gutted you feel afterwards.
"At some point Americans are going to wake up and see ..."
... that the Earth far older than 6,000 years?
... that evolution by natural selection is real?
... that corporations are /not/ people?
... ... ...
Sorry, I don't think enough of my fellow Americans will be waking up. Critical thinking is not taught in the majority of our schools, nor is it nurtured in the majority of our families.
Please review before posting:
I have the lucky "choice" of Comcast (cable) or CenturyLink (dsl). Problem is, DSL maxes out at 7mbps in my area, but I'm lucky to get 1,5Mbps. Cable has a minimum of 30Mbps, up to 105Mbps. 30Mbps cable or 1.5-7mbps dsl (no real difference in price). Not really any "choice" there, unless you enjoy watching paint dry.
> "You'll note that there are points where high CO2 correlates with high temp, and also points where low CO2 correlates with high temps. There are also points where increasing CO2 correlates with rising temps, and points where increasing CO2 correlates with falling temps"
All this tells us is that c02 isn't the only driver of climate, and not a single climate scientist will claim it is. But we do know it is one of the drivers of climate. It's ridiculous to think that we can dump endless amounts of it into our atmosphere with zero effect, especially when we can model and observe quite the opposite.
"What predictions of climate scientists' models *ever* been proved to be even remotely accurate?"
Look around you.
Does evolution through natural selection predict exactly what lifeforms you're going to end up with? Of course not. What do you expect the climate models to predict? Exactly where, when and what a temperature increase will be? Exactly where and when we will see increased climate volatility? We simply don't have the computational power to do that. But they did accurately predict increased average temperature and climate volatility as c02 level rise. Have these not come to pass? What's next? Are you going to say that evolution isn't real because there are "gaps in the fossil record?"
"Since the vast majority of "scientific" opinions - or perhaps that ought to be scientific "opinions" - are paid by one special interest group or another, and many, mostly AGW advocates by both, your reasoning leads to the conclusion that we can ignore the entire issue"
One group has a vested interest in disproving and creating controversy, much like ID and evolution. The other has, for the most part, scientific method. The reason I put "scientist" in quotes, is because most of the deniers do not apply scientific method to the data at hand. They find what they think is an issue in the data (like a warm or cold period), and, just like god-in-the-gaps with evolution, they believe they've blown the whole thing out of the water, without taking all the evidence as a whole. Like standing too close to a Monet, and saying "All I see is dots!".
"Hypotheses which cannot make predictions..."
They have made predictions... and, so far, they've been right. You just don't like the predictions they've made.
"'I can't think of another reason therefore he did it' doesn't cut it in the real world I'm afraid."
Lets see: Witness saw him enter the pub with a gun. gun was fired. Suspect has power residue on his hands after leaving the pub. Suspect has history of action. No other individual in the establishment has a gun, nor was another gun found.
That's not "can't think of another reason". That's, "given the evidence, no other reason fits".
Same thing applies to C02 and climate change -- except we have even more evidence with c02 and climate change.
"To what extent we are contributing to it is still a very open question."
To the average Joe? Sure, but then Joe may also believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
The more data that is gathered, the more apparent the current warming trend is related to c02, and our release of it. While you can argue "correlation does not equal causation", and "climate is too complex to model accurately", those claims do not hold up to the preponderance of evidence.
Trying to maintain your claim is like saying "I saw Bob enter the pub with a gun. I heard one shot fired, and when he left, police captured him and found powder residue on his hand. We know that no one else left the pub, and a thorough search turned up no other gun. Bob also has a history of shooting guns in pubs, but I just don't believe Bob fired the gun. Correlation doesn't equal causation, don't-cha-know."
We know the release of c02 has an effect on climate -- there is no denying this. We know the level of c02 in the atmosphere is increasing -- there is no denying this. We know our climate is changing -- there is no denying this. All other proposals for why the climate is changing have been found wanting -- there is no denying this. We have models that show c02 being a probable candidate. Yet Bob still didn't pull the trigger?
"Scientists" that have been paid by those benefiting from denying anthropogenic climate change don't count.
Remember the lead pollution from leaded gasoline? There were plenty of paid shills, some of them "scientists", that twisted the results of others' research attempting to show there wasn't an issue -- and it worked for many years.
Are you saying we should still allow tetraethyl lead in our gas because a few paid shills, and millions poured in propaganda, tried to convince the public that it wasn't an issue?
The first AI that we'll recognise as equal to our own will happen after we're able to simulate the growth of a human in a computer in near real time. This ethically dubious "virtual human" will be no less intelligent than ourselves, and what we learn from it will finally crack the nut, allowing us to expand on this type of intelligence without resorting to growing a human, or other animal, in a simulator.
So, would the superstitious among us believe such a "virtual human" to have a soul?
Now if only some of that extra cash flow could make their network useable outside of larger cities and major highways...
"As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?"
Nice logical fallacy you have there. Travel by commercial airline is statistically safer than automobile, yet we all don't have a commercial airliner in our garage. Does the fact that I can't maintain service for a Boeing 747 in my garage somehow make them less safe?
In science, "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you're thinking of "hypothesis"?
For evolution to have made it to "theory" means that it a very solid science indeed.
This is what comes from Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection used by our government. Just like when you choose the lowest bid for work done on your home, more often than not you end up with crap results.
Please tell point me to these "loads of security issues" in Android's Dalvik JVM. Android has security issues, but I haven't seen Dalvik pointed out as the attack vector for these issues.
And read up on exactly what Oracle's suit was about, and why they effectively lost. A nine-line rangeCheck function, and the "structure, sequence and organization of the Java Application Programming Interface (API)" does not make a JVM, nor does it equal "loads" of code.
AC says "In order to make Java secure it needs a complete rewrite from the ground up (not constant patching that currently happens)."
You do know that Android doesn't use Oracle's JVM, right? It uses Dalvik JVM -- Dalvik doesn't have the same security issues that Oracle's JVM has -- and it doesn't run in a browser on Android -- the main attack vector when using Oracle's JVM.
The KitKats here in the states have a waxy yet gritty texture, seem needlessly sweeter, have less cookie/wafer, and just taste poor in comparison.
So, does this naming mean that the UK version of Android will be better?
Offering credit services includes risk. Mitigating those risks through illegal means IS NOT acceptable. That is what this case is about. Dell is free to attempt recovery, but must do it legally.
While I disagree with Page's habitually unscientific pandering to climate change deniers, he is absolutely correct when it comes to pointing out the mass hysteria that surrounds anything "radioactive" or nuclear.
Compared to all other sources of energy we have today, nuclear is by far the safest -- especially when you factor in pollution (including CO2) from other energy sources. Now, if we could only see meaningful investment in generation 4 reactors, like MSR.
I don't say "Christmas", because I don't celebrate Christmas. I go to the beach to avoid Christmas, but maybe I'll buy a Nexus 10 this holiday season before heading to the beach no not celebrate Christmas.
"The only thing is that Eric Schmidt and co pay many millions in lobbying to make sure that the elected legislators will not change the law"
Yes, but politicians *should* have no "Fiduciary duty" to these lobbyists. A politician's duty *should* be to their constituents, the vast majority of them not being part of any particular lobby. Unfortunately too many of us are distracted by shiny advertisements when it comes time to vote. Should we blame the billions dumped into campaign contributions, or our own complacency?
No, it just makes the "joke" all that more poignant.
>Strangely enough building a nuclear plant ain't cheap and how much do you need for decommissioning and waste management?
Look at my post above. Nuclear doesn't not need to be expensive and waste generating. If half the amount invested in solar and wind was invested in developing MSRs or any of the other "new" nuclear technologies, we would be in a much better place right now.
Just because our current LWRs are wasteful and expensive, doesn't mean all nuclear is. Nuclear is a very large field.
* Ahem *
Why, so often, do us "greens" avoid talking about modern nuclear technologies, or if we do, immediately start demonizing them without understanding the technology?
Please take a look at the Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) as just one example of an energy source that us greens should be embracing, without delay:
The problem with calculating probable outcomes is there's always a chance that the outcome will not happen as predicted.
In a society with advanced enough technology to calculate the probable intent of a human with anything over 50% accuracy, I would hope that there is also enough knowledge to see obvious issues with prosecuting individuals based on predictions of possible future actions or thoughts.
My guess is that, just as this article states, it would be used for more effective treatment of the mentally ill.
That depends on the type of non-believer you're talking about. Are they non-believers because they only think the existence of a supernatural God is simple unknowable, or is it because they fully understand the extremely low and ever shrinking probability of having a supernatural force governing our lives?
It's the defining difference between Agnostic Atheists and Atheists. An Agnostic Atheist could be conceivably flipped to an Agnostic Theist with a simple change of perspective, where an outright Atheist will generally not be converted without proof of the supernatural claim using scientific method.
100% accuracy? Hell, even a human stenographer isn't going to give you that.
No, it just needs to be "good enough".
Or, "Arris to eat Googorol's box".
I think it was meant to read something like:
"He's also said Macronix intends to commercialize the technology,"
Probably started out thinking something like, "He's also said the technique will be commercialized," but then suffered from a brain fart in the transition.
Is it that hard to remember?
... sits squarely on anyone who encourages superstition by holding faith in it up as an admirable virtue and on those that refuse to speak up and call it what it is.
If you seek to coddle insanity, the result should come as no surprise. Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Astrologists, Spiritualists, ..., ... all of them nutters.
And you are surprised by this? Idiots flock to superstitious faith like flies to ....
"Can't we admire the wonder of the universe without using it as a chance to insult each other's beliefs?"
No. Every new scientific discovery should be openly paraded as more evidence against mindless superstition. How else will the virus of superstition ever be extinguished? By continuing to believe it some sort of virtue that deserves admiration and respect?
I would expect to see bulldozer successors to eliminate their native vector/SIMD/FPU abilities, to instead translate and offload the work to the GPU.
The thought of an ad-supported mobile operator is interesting, but I would guess that the second Google announced plans to acquire T-Mobile USA, other mobile operators would announce that they will no longer be selling Android based equipment.