Common mistake. As it was ruled by direct succession of Emperors from Rome itself and under the same laws (though developing, of course), and much of the same society, peoples, etc., the peoples of Byzantium called their Empire...Rome. So did their eventual conquerors and the proto-states of Today's Turkey, and various languages call Greek-speaking Turks and Greeks "Rum" or "Roman". Colloquial Greek itself still calls Greek-speakers "Romeyka", meaning "Roman" since they are (or like to think of themselves as)...the descendents/escapees of Rome/its conquerors and their successors.

Okay, mind indicating the best way for doing so in, say, User Agent Switcher for Firefox? e.g. know which field actually transmits...or maybe you know a better agent with more mark-up and which field in options for a given agent to use?

I ask because I look and see a lot of options, for instance, like "Description" or "Vendor" and don't know precisely what actually transmits and which one to enter text like this into.

NSA letters, if my occassional skimming on the topic is correct, are gag orders about themselves as well. There are apparently ways to legally respond in the public to these without revealing one has been received but it involves not talking rather than talking.

As much as scientists in other fields adore outspoken, know-it-all physicists, Bakâ(TM)s audacious idea â" that the brainâ(TM)s ordered complexity and thinking ability arise spontaneously from the disordered electrical activity of neurons â" did not meet with immediate acceptance.

Actually no. They know some of them "probably" will die, with such high certainty that they just say "will die", but there's a good chance you as the individual soldier will not actually die. For all the heroics surrounding soldiers, the least convincing thing to me is the 'facing death' idea given that your chances are actually pretty good. 2-10% chances of death vs. all the other crap people face daily...of course that's over huge numbers vs. local involvements but then that's also what we see in the real world: clusters of probabilities with more dilution between clusters. The real heroes are the...steely ones who can mentally put up with all the crap you can throw at them.

Sending someone to, say, Afghanistan vs. to Europa really are entirely different: in the latter case, barring some hyper-extraordinary rush of development ability to manufacture for space all within a few months followed by boosting to orbit the new ship that will then out-run the other to catch it...that probability approaches infinitely toward zero, not only of dying but even "making it" with one or two good radiation waves from the Sun.

On the other hand, come-up with a system and plan to get someone back, then you can avoid the "callous disregard" part and the person taking the risk isn't certifiable insane/stoppable but now the hero. Maybe it even consists rather not so much "get back", but perhaps "my some miracle all this stuff we'll send after you in a thousand different directions at different velocities will make it and you can survive out there a while."

Who with the training and highest qualifications in the world wouldn't go for an opportunity to do such insane sol-system shattering R&D real-time when your life is on the line? Just as long as there is a substantive, serious, committed--irrevocable--effort to sustain that life or lives, then people would back it and be correct to do so.

It goes to administration, which like HR professionals always expands its own class, hence pay and lobbying power, hence tentacles through a system, and then repeat. Give all a raise--and throw-in tenured profs (especially those with admin privilges themselves) for good measure, and repeat again.

To adapt Reagan's motto: "defund the [administrative class]."

Matter of factly, my first thought seeing this summary is, "I don't know enough about these things" (little to nothing, really) "but every time I see some 'simple' solution to a security hole like TOTAL SHIFT OVER it seems to be some kind of propaganda by interested parties to undermine something widely adopted the works for something obscure and promising" (HYPED) "that likely works in their favor." Of course, then counter-propaganda may ensue...the safest bet is to hide in the closet till you starve to death.

Still not the point: the point is, the issue here was copyright. Throwing-in sleights and attacks based on something else, ridiculous. Then protesting that it's being narrow? hah. And it isn't being black-and-white, it is being "correct", meaning precise, honest, to-the-point. If you wanted to make it something else you might say, "on another issue, these people..." but otherwise I simply won't appreciate what you're saying by saying and not saying. That kind of allusive dishonest (intended or not--context does matter) should be called-out every time.


The unfortunate truth is, the businesses serving the general that survive are typically those who DON'T care--they keep their problems separate from customers' to a great degree. In niches and technical services there are exceptions. But you don't see Google putting-up easy means to contact them very directly, not anyone that matters--and the unspoken 'secret' is that proficient people don't use gmail anyway, they go with AOL, Comcast, or CenturyLink e-mail services...and all of those [quite unacceptable] companies actually take huge losses supporting crap that really aren't their issues: to the point that to survive you either turn-off empathy and keep it a very distant professionalism, or your quite (I know this first-hand). I'm talking the fact that...tens of thousands of the idiots call screaming that they're not paying for what they can't use (because their computer is broken) or they demand the company sends someone to install everything they have for free (because though using DSL they removed their own phone jacks while re-doing the basement) or their iShit isn't working (which constantly have problems connecting properly because the networking software is improperly done) or [I won't accept that last agent's explanation that my computer is broken, it's been working 6 years!!!!] and more...

All of those are just examples from my last hour handling such people last night: they're not even very important in the light of the fact that simple support of what you actually are either responsible for because it's your stuff or because you've agreed to do it usually means dealing with someone whose verbal and technical ability is about on par with an advance form of dementia. Now magnify this over millions and then ponder why (a) large companies would be i. secretive ii. defenive iii. lobby to-death in their advantage (when politicians will gladly come tear them apart for being tze 'evilz') (b) selectively empathetic (c) push costs and quality down as much as possible while raising prices (d) etc. They can't keep-up the contact with these idiots--it's only getting worse with the downward spiral of Amerika obsessing over its [bad] food and [bad] "entertainment" rather than working to understand real things and doing real work.

Castigating someone who is whining on behalf of those who have little to no intelligence on such topics is therefore not a good way to stifle intelligent discussion, but a good way to point-out the bullshit that passes for intelligence. And the point is: if you want big-budget info/enter-tainment for nuthin', oh well. If you feel like you deserve a service that someone else refuses, it's probably not discrimination, it's probably not even about you at all (nobody is thinking of entering eastern Europe any time soon in a big way, haven't been and especially now really really aren't: thanks Eur-asian progressivism! The latter really being, by the way, the self-describing term used by those movements that gave us the darling gems stretching from Russia's western borders to the pacific, and down through to the Indian ocean.) If you want it...build it yourself. Take the risks (it may be a colossal failure and you may not get your life back but at least you can exchange former dreams for future respect for trying), don't demand it from somebody else--you could go to convince them or their shareholders, however.

Thinking at a tank pointed at your face--or your friends' or allies'--is wishful thinking of the kind that certainly is appropriate to faux intellectualism. Have at it. :)

Not the point. The point is distraction from the actual issue: yours wasn't even a counter-point. It's a separate issue. ;)

Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.

What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...

And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit. You don't care for complete strangers to whom you sell a little more wasted time (life). You care if you tell them "get out of here" (theater) or "drop this subscription and get off the couch" (at home) "and do something real with your money." idk, like have a kid--buy the kid some art supplies and learn something together, transmit [worthwhile] "values"...

But should a group invest in a project and it fails...let them claim their legal entitlement in court to disgorge the wrongful takings as well as lost opportunities and enjoyment and whatever else they can validly claim, don't drop a SPECIFIC "they were entitled" in the middle of discussing GENERAL copyright infringement as a protest "slimy pretentious publicaly-vapid assholes who think [their own] emotion is everything don't care about us!" WAAAAAAA The problem in a liberal society is their kind of mental illness can go unchecked (and it spreads); the problem in a conservative one is that worse actors simply won't limit the beatings to superficiality but extend it as far and wide as possible. xD

Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.

What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...

And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit.

You mean, like talking to a psychopath's tanks? There are wackjobs and radicals who don't want solutions, they want their way: if in their irrational furor they'll nuke you but they're rational enough to want to self-preserve, and know that you in your rational prejudice respecting such things you'll nuke back out of principle, then they probably won't make that move. Certain great leaders wrote in their own journals how the damn accursed evil unfair B52s circling them (loaded with nukes) at all times made them think before every move, and kept them from expanding further...blasted capitalist rats!

"capitalistic" simply means "unfettered human cooperation", and it's the "unfettered" that's the problem; but your socialist rhetoric is about two hundred years out of date and every experiment ever done in it failed miserably. The problem isn't "capitalism", but that we have the wrong fetters: none for the greedy and powerful in the name of protecting the [true] needy and weak from their under-feet, all in the name of protecting the latter to restrain and impair their ability to compete--to join-together. Government stance: "it's for your own good don'tcha know...so break the rule and we'll fuck you."

xD Wasn't saying that it's the only factor. x)~ And the intention wasn't to say it is cut-off that brings collapse, either; if you can be cut-off, then perhaps you're cutivation of a given set of skills, and mores and beliefs underneath them (that is, as drive, direction, etc.), are together simply less effective to animate and spur you in the face of another set of ideas. Or perhaps you're just small; perhaps your mores are alright but in a week generation autokrats, kleptocrats, or some other crushing/corrupting/taking regime rises and ruins you for the impending onslaught. BUT...a commonality is that whether because these take over an area or because you're cut-off despite not being like these...you fall. So I think it may be a significant, though by no means the only, factor. xD