I will certainly agree that there is a risk of malware installing free programs and some people are better off with this site. I use a lot of really good free software but I never install anything without research. Even legitimate programs sometimes come with additional options that you have to uncheck. It's not necessarily malware but just annoying when you discover something you did not need and have to uninstall it. Jdownloader is an excellent safe program, but in the early days of version 2 they came under heavy criticism for bundling extra crap with the upgrade. They apologized on their site and released a clean install. There are some people who will click on anything. I have the advantage having a son who is a computer genius who taught me a lot or I might be the same way. There are probably YouTube download programs that are trojans or at least adware.
My question is still: Why not just rip it yourself with so many free apps available? Are there that many people unaware of these tools? I would much rather watch a video of the artist performing than just listen to a track. If you only want the audio for your mp3 player or phone or podcast that's simple. Copy the YouTube link and Jdownloader will give you all the options. Video, audio, subtitles, description, etc. I don't need this site. I guess maybe someone who is really technologically challenged might. I thought pretty much everyone was aware that it easy to download from YouTube and many other video sites but I guess I could be wrong.
What was the point of this site? Who needs a web site to download audio tracks ripped from YouTube when there are so many applications that can download both audio and video yourself? There is no DRM on YouTube and if they do implement it there will be ways to defeat it in a matter of days, if not hours. YouTube itself is a site offering free downloads of copyrighted music. If all you want is audio there are thousands of sites where you can find it in better quality than ripped from them.
Re: The justice system doesn't even use forensics to detect culprits.
Even when there is strong evidence that the wrong person was convicted it can take years to free an innocent man. There have been cases where DNA, police or prosecutorial misconduct, jury tampering, or new evidence comes to light. Testimony by jailhouse snitches who are rewarded with charged dropped or reduced are taken as facts. Even when someone else confesses and there is strong evidence that it true it is not enough. Victims and witnesses have admitted to lying sometimes under pressure or threats by investigators. Often authorities don't like to admit they were wrong. Sometimes there is a conviction and crimes with very distinct signatures and details that were never released continue. Even when they catch the right person it is an uphill battle to get the wrongful conviction overturned. TV crime shows that portray these situations and the next day the prisoner is freed with the judge apologizing are far from reality. Often they have to go through retrials and sometimes are falsely convicted again. It can take years and sometimes they die in prison or are executed before they are exonerated. The child abuse hysteria in the 1980's saw dozens of innocent people convicted. Children were interviewed and encouraged to invent crimes and even the most ridiculous stories were believed. It was claimed "children don't lie about these things." They do when improper methods are used and are pushed to make up fantasies of satanic rituals and are told the lie "your friend already told what happened." Tapes have been released where their persistent denials that anything happened are met with displeasure and unbelief. Eventually tell what they think the interviewer wants to hear.
Re: Can we get this standard used in climate science?
Whatever statistics presented can be explained by normal fluctuations throughout known history. When I was in school in the 60's we were taught that the earth was heading toward another ice age. That was because we were in a normal cooling cycle even though the years of WWII and after saw the greatest increase in manufacturing in all history. I could accept evidence of global warming but the link to it being caused by man is weak. Natural events like volcanoes, forest fires and even cow farts produce more C02 and other pollutants than we ever could. Emission controls are a good thing because they do reduce a lot of toxins but they can do little to change the climate. I have never understood the claim that emission controls help prevent global warming. Five gases are measured in testing, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxygen, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide (CO2). You want the first four to be as low as possible but CO2 high, ideally over 13%. I thought CO2 was the big bad culprit in greenhouse gases yet a properly running car produces more of it.
Juries tend to believe eyewitness testimony and have often convicted on that with no other evidence. If the witness knew the suspect well beforehand or multiple witnesses testified the were certain I might give it some consideration. The vast majority of prisoners cleared by DNA were sent up by a faulty ID by one witness. Often these identifications are made when the witness only saw the suspect for a few seconds, in poor lighting or from a distance. I bought groceries just yesterday and chatted with the check out clerk for several minutes. If I was asked to pick her out of a lineup today I doubt I could do it. At best I could give generalities like height, race or approximate age. The practice of using the "six pack" of photos should be be outlawed. Prosecutors try to give the idea that trauma of the crime somehow indelibly records images in the victim's mind and that is bullshit. If anything it causes them to fixate on the first resemblance they see and then point at them from the witness stand. Fictional TV series often show the police sketch looking just like the perp. On real crime shows like The First 48 or Forensic Files that is rarely the case. I had to laugh at one they actually released that looked just like Freddy Fudd from Bugs Bunny cartoons. Who can forget the famous Unabomber sketch that looked more like Michael Jackson than Ted Kaczynski?
Same here. I might use my printer a couple times a month to print a grocery list and an occasional shipping label. I got tired of ink jets drying out and plugging up. I got a laser printer and have had no problems. I read that it is a good idea to occasionally shake the cartridges.
I bought a Xerox Phaser 6010N. It came with the usual starter toner cartridges. Considering how little I use my printer these partial cartridges would probably last a long time. I just thought I would see what replacements cost and was shocked. I paid $140 for the printer but it would be $220 to replace all 4 cartridges from Xerox. I found a complete compatible pack with an extra black for $30 on Amazon. I tried them and they show up as genuine in the diag when I turn it on. I figured they were either refills or bootleg. In case they get sued and put out of business by Xerox I bought 3 more sets. I checked my firewall and the only settings I found for printing were for home network sharing. I checked the Xerox web site and the only firmware download was from 2012. The only software utility says it can't find a printer. The user manual has nothing about any updates. Is there still some way they could force some firmware update on me that would disable these cheap replacements? I get updates for devices like my video card with Windows update but they are always optional.
As much as I dislike Obama I'm starting to think we got the lesser of two evils in the 08 election. This time it's hard to decide which is worse with the current choices. Unless one of them drops out and someone qualified steps in we are screwed either way.
They wanted to use this case as a precedent to force companies to break encryption. They knew there was no useful intel in this work phone or the gunman would have destroyed it like his personal phone. They thought that no one would stand up to them because this was a really bad guy. I'm sure they got a warrant for the metadata so the claim they needed to know who he was in contact with was bullshit. When they realized this case was lost they lied to save face. They wouldn't have paid a dime to hack it. They knew this guy was not part of any terrorist organization.
In many ways I agree. A lot of lawyers are bastards. In my reckless youth when I got into some legal trouble I'm glad I hired the right bastard. In front of the judge he told me to shut up. The judge said "Are you paying this man to represent you"? I answered yes and she said "Then I suggest you shut up". I got probation.
Even that is generous compared to some. This charity raised $9.7 million and only gave $57 thousand to the cause. The money they claimed went to research actually were shell companies. They were finally shut down but how many others are just as bad? If you are feeling charitable great, but do your research. Cold calling telemarketers are a red flag. At best they give a little to the cause, at worst they are outright frauds stealing credit card numbers. https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-feature/165
No way is this all that will happen to him. That summery involves several felonies. We haven't heard from the IRS yet. I'm guessing he could end up in prison for life on tax evasion charges alone. Judge Wright referred his case to several authorities including the IRS. If this guy had any sense he would have fled to a country with no extradition back then. This guy is too stupid to even grasp just how much trouble he is in. Too late now. He is probably already on the no fly list. Pass the popcorn!
Oliver Stone has never made a movie about even well documented events that wasn't 95% fiction. Snowden could come out in this movie looking worse than his most ardent detractors portray him. Hollywood has always played fast and loose with the truth but Stone's movies are some of the worst. He gets ripped for this all the time but he doesn't care. Only about what sells tickets. They say truth is stranger than fiction but it is a total stranger to Oliver Stone.
Millard Fillmore in 1850 was the last president that wasn't Democratic or Republican. He party was Whig. It had became a major party formed to oppose Andrew Jackson. 3 other Whig presidents were elected. Ross Perot in 1992 was the only 3rd party candidate to win any significant percentage of the vote since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
Snowden was willing to risk everything to expose government wrong doing. Admirable, but I don't know if that is compatible with politics. Neither party will support someone that will out their dirty little secrets.
The fact that one officer out of three did not want to fire off a missile that could have set off a nuclear holocaust is not much comfort. Coming down to one man preventing WWIII doesn't make for a lot of checks and balances. What if a different officer would have been assigned to that sub that day? Many of the missiles in Cuba were ready to go and you can bet we had ships and subs that could have taken Moscow off the map. I don't JFK was bluffing about retaliation.
Isn't the Secretary of Defense appointed by the president? I know congress has to confirm appointments but judging from our choice of candidates neither party is thinking rationally these days. In the military there is the saying "shit runs downhill". If Trump could convince the top brass to go along with some stupid decision it could go through with few underneath seriously challenging it. It was many years before it was released how close we came to a nuclear exchange during the Cuban missile crisis. 2 out of 3 of the Russian officers aboard a submarine wanted to launch when we dropped depth charges.