If they can't agree, then they don't need the fucking law.

Murder is wrong, I'm sure you could find more then 60% of the population to vote on that, with at least 50% of those voting that, yes, murder is wrong.

You maybe happy to be a sheep, and get fleeced... But I would rather keep my wooly coat, and not see my young ones taken off to the market, not see my friends and family slaughtered for meat.

You may think, "it won't happen to me", and it might not. But it happens to too many people as it is.

Stop the fleecing, fuck government.

----

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.

There's no government, like no government.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

How about you just stop electing people? Why do you need a fucking "big brother" to look after you anyway? I am an adult. I am responsible for my self. I don't need a government telling me I should wear a seat belt, not take drugs etc.

How about (if you want a government at all), you have a look at demarchy (see also Demarchy; random selection of decision makers)? Or heck, with present technology, everyone could vote on everything! Of course, you would have to introduce a quorum, maybe at least 60% of people have to actually vote for anything to pass. Then if people don't care, well, who needs more laws anyway?

Basically, this man, he won't change anything.

At the end of the day, you still have rich people who screw over poor people. Poor people who screw over poor people. Politicians who screw over everyone (and bend over backwards for donations from rich people and corporations).

Basically, for all you people who think that this new fellow is going to be "different", tell me in four years time whether you still have to go to fucking work nearly every day of the week (for the vast majority who do). Heck, I would guess at least half of the things he promised aren't even possible without the Congress, and they aren't different, even if you think this man is.

Big deal. You got a "black" fellow as president. When you are you going to abolish the outdated presidential system? That would be real change worth having.

Err, 1970 yes?

I guess my not know that could be counted as an epoch fail?

1234567890 seconds since when?

Are you still counting from when some bishop said that some god figure was born? And as we understand it, actually the bishop got the figure wrong by at least a couple of years, because he counted the reign of some Roman emperor wrongly.

Why not count from the death of the king during the French Revolution? Or the adoption of the metric system (the introduction of rationalism and simplicity to measurement)?

----

As to how I like to measure time, by the passing of the days, the movement of the sun, other stars and the moon. Fuck accurate measurement for time for daily life.

(Unless there is something on the telle, but what with the Internet and downloading shows ...)

Dra åt helvete, jag hatar dig.

(For those not in the know, the Danes once controlled most of Scandinavia. And they must never forget that they were once an imperialist power. They must therefore tread softly when talking to other people. Even though it was years and years ago. It still counts. Bloody imperialists. (I'm not making this up, there is still a guilt complex among some Danes about this.))

Other people have various solutions, label them, have only one per device (which isn't a solution much of the time anyway), don't share them among the family etc.

But you have the solution in your very question: Something to hold them all.

I don't use SD personally (though my next camera will be using SD, as Linux based devices can read them, unlike XD cards). My camera is an Olympus, a few years old now. The camera before that was also an Olympus. One of the best things that came with my camera was a little plastic thingy that holds six XD cards. It's great, I've got four cards, and only one can be in the camera at anyone time (obviously). Being able to carry so many cards, without worrying about them (being so small), especially when I won't be near a computer for a while, is wonderful.

Even if you don't get a plastic or leather thingy that will specifically hold SD cards, it shouldn't be hard to find something.

Anyway, a quick websearch turns up for example,
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/images/products/fullpics/00156001-00156250/156046.jpg
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/images/products/fullpics/00016251-00016500/16474.jpg

I fail to see how having copyright extend 75 years past the death of the artist encourages said artist to produce anything either before or after they die.

I am alive today, right now, and can not imagine the world 75 years after I die. Why should such a distant future (at least 75 years into the future, and hopefully many more), affect my decision making process now regarding creating new art work?

Surely I should be creating art work now to benefit myself right now? (Or more likely for most of the good artists, they would be producing stuff anyway.)

Having a long copyright does nothing to benefit artists, but only parasites and other scum.

Some websites with arguments against copyright
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright

Except that I very much doubt that the name is copyrighted, or else everyone should be getting into trouble when they write it down. Wikipedia wouldn't be able to have an article about Popeye etc. etc.

Now the name might be a trademark, which is something which doesn't expire (unless not defended, or unless it becomes generic).

Dear folks, please don't use the term "intellectual property" at all. Trademarks are quite different to copyrights, which are very different to patents. They are all covered under different laws, and of those three, I believe that only copyright is international.

(Oh, and a great example of long copyright encouraging dead artists to keep producing yes?)

Oh, and the company that pays them wouldn't drop them like that if it suited the bottom line?

The days of respecting and being loyal to the company have long gone, because the company doesn't respect, and certainly isn't loyal to, you.

The union, on the other hand, will tend to be loyal to their members, will fight for their rights, and so on. (Unions aren't perfect, but under a capitalism system, they are often better than nothing.)

----

More generally, it amazes me that so many "free market" types hate unions. But they don't have any trouble with corporations and so on colluding to keep wages down.

That's the trouble with those who want a perfectly free capitalist market (a contradiction in terms). The want to give all the power to the bosses, and screw the workers, even when joining together in a union is good for the workers interests. They don't like unions because they don't really want a free market, they want a bosses market.

Fuck that.

According to the International Earth-Destruction Advisory Board, the current "Earth-Destruction Alert Level" is "RED". Which means that the Earth has been destroyed.
A quote from the FAQ:

My baby's in there!

Your baby has most likely been destroyed.

----

Anyway, for you deluded fools who think the Earth is still around, take head of this warning:

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.

Obviously it's a little out of date now, 'cause those rascals at CERN managed the job, but still...

I note that the fools from the article don't actually want to destroy the Earth (well maybe one or two of the scenarios might break it apart or something), otherwise they would have come up with some scenarios like:

• Annihilated by an equivalent quantity of antimatter
• Cooked in a solar oven
• Meticulously and systematically deconstructed

(Quote and methods from How to destroy the Earth.)

Fools, I'll show them all!

Is "phishing detection" security? Or does it just provide a false sense of security?

To quote myself (from <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1030947&cid=25776933>, strong added):

Because blacklists don't work. Want to not get phished? Simple instructions that even the most computerphobic person can understand:

When you want to go to the website of your bank, credit union etc., type in what you see on the printed material you have in front of you! (Alternatively, for the more computer literate folks, create a bookmark/favourite after having typed in the address from the printed material from your bank. And only access it via that link.)

Never trust a link via an email, never trust a link from another website, not even if the address looks the same. (Character encoding, bad eyes and other things can make two strings look the same, even when they aren't.)

Basically, "phishing detection" is a flawed approach to the problem, and the best solution (as with most computer security issues), is user education. Considering that banks already have a "captive" audience (the audience has to read the material provided by the bank before being able to connect), they have a great opportunity to provide education to users.

They could even have a short quiz before they allowed their customers to get online access to their accounts. Perhaps questions like:

• Will your bank ever email you regarding problems with your account? (No.)
• Should you ever give your online password to anyone? (No.)
• How should you access the banks website? (Answer given above.)

And subsequently ask one of these questions each login ...
Of course, if the bank thinks that the answers above should be different, maybe it's time to move to a different bank.

Combined with a security token, this should cut down on most phishing.

(And actually, no bank I have ever used has known my email, I just refuse to give it to them (No I don't have an email address.).)

tag: appleispants

'Cause apple is pants.

Anyway, it sounds like a clear case of bad hardware, and thus should be replaced. Obviously still in the warranty period, 'cause the items are barely a few months old.

Though, actually, the article talks about updating firmware. Odd.

Actually, the entire article doesn't say much at all.