Slashdot Mirror

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=als

4 USB ports on the back. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=USB+numpad

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ayn+Rand+social+security+payments

If the show is any good, I might have a copy on my harddisk..

Hmmm? You mean it's not about the new My Little Pony show?

Well try this then: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22zodiac+island%22+torrent

Well, apparently Comodo systems are so secure that they are hacker proof.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mysql+table+join

>>I'm looking for "intimidate" in the stories you link to and it's not there

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prop+8+intimidation

White powder mailed to Mormon churches, writing a supporter's clients (http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-11-23/opinion/20871510_1_scott-eckern-free-speech-intimidation) and so forth.

What you (and everyone) needs to realize is that just because someone has the same political beliefs as you, doesn't mean they're angels.

Yeah. This is only a myth if you're willing to discount multiple studies that show that multiple monitors do increase productivity.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+multiple+monitors+increase+productivity

Way to go, editors.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sears+tower+electrical+usage

let me google that for you... moron

slashdot = stagnated

i love you

slashdot = stagnated

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=squier+strat+rock+band+3 Journalism must be tough.

Let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+a+microsecond+is%3F&l=1

+1 To you Sir. I was just about to comment the same thing.

I have to say that ever if you're not a passionate gamer it's not that hand to Google it... ;)

Educating oneself about things like these on the Internet is ultimately pretty easy compared to a lot of other settings.

The 2.4 GHz band used in WiFi is one of the most difficult to shield. All the small metallic parts used in electronic equipment, like screws and button levers, are in the same size magnitude as the wave, so there are plenty of conductive parts to retransmit and conduct the radio frequency.

You're full of horseshit.

Here you are: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rock-paper-scissors Seriously, the answer is in wikipedia, but you may like the lmgtfy thing. No offense!

I now offer people a Linux Live CD - such as Ubuntu. Tell them it will get their machine working, they can recover the files, and I won't need to see their private stuff.
Now if they are the type who like clicking "yes" to everything including the "install" option, well, that's another problem fixed for good.
Support by email - http://lmgtfy.com/ and http://giyf.com/ are good pointers.

And apparently they don't have Google in other countries.

Why you couldn't be bothered to look up the terms is beyond me.

Firstly I confess to never having heard of Thorium as a nuclear fuel... you have not convinced me, for one !!

If you're looking for more information on Thorium Reactors, this link has everything you need to get started: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=thorium+reactors

Here you go, buddy.

Oh http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

You may use the left lane (when there is more than one lane in your direction) to pass. You may or may not be able to use the left lane when not passing. The table below describes the law in effect in each state.

A few states permit use of the left lane only for passing or turning left. These have "yes" in the "keep right" column. Six states require drivers to move right if they are blocking traffic in the left lane. Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless of the speed limit; see below). These are listed as "slower", with an asterisk and an explanation under "comments" if vehicles lawfully using the left lane must yield to overtaking traffic. A few states either do not require vehicles to keep right ("no"), or permit vehicles moving at the speed limit to drive in the left lane regardless of traffic conditions ("SL").

The color coding in the "keep right" column is red if the state has no restriction on slow vehicles in the left lane, yellow if vehicles moving at the normal speed of traffic are permitted in the left lane even when they are unnecessarily obstructing other traffic, green if use of the left lane is limited to passing, and grey otherwise.

And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.

Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!

How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself. No, better yet, allow me. So, the FACTS show that in the past 10 years, there have been the exact same number of pro-life demonstrators murdered than abortion doctors.

But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

My opinion only but I think Apple dropped the ball with the iPad again. Why not provide a stylus and an app that would make the iPad behave like electronic paper. You could take notes in class, in meetings, draw tech diagrams, etc?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=stylus+for+ipad

Experience with APK? I'm sorry to hear that. He's a sad, sick little man. For those of you who don't know what we're dealing with here, Google "Alexander Peter Kowalski" and read the first hit. It's hilarious and gets you a great idea as to who this guy is.

Although, anyone who's been on Slashdot for any number of weeks already knows what a douche bag he is.

Samba 4:

What is Samba 4 meant to accomplish? In simplest terms, Samba 4 is an ambitious, yet achievable, reworking of the Samba code. Major features for Samba 4 already include:

        * support of the 'Active Directory' logon and administration protocols
        * new 'full coverage' testsuites
        * full NTFS semantics for sharing backends
        * Internal LDAP server, with AD semantics
        * Internal Kerberos server, including PAC support
        * Bind9 integration for AD DNS support

...

OMG let me yahoo that for you i mean
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+yahoo+a+verb+now
and to be totally funny google returns as No.1:
"Is google a verb now? - Yahoo! Answers"

It's happening in and around Detroit especially, but all over the country too. Google is your friend you lazy wanker. Three of the top five results from that properly constructed query relate to the subject at hand. Learn2Search.

Fortunately, someone compiled a list of relevant articles on the subject.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sony+geohot+lawsuit

here and here, retard.

here and here, retard.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=SQL+injection

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apple+subscription+rules+June&l=1

You're just taking apart my arguments but it fails to demonstrate that MMfA is justified in making them. You can't find any articles that have no explanations or refutations attached to them? Have you read any of the articles? Here's another one without any explanation whatsoever attached to it: Beck: "You're About To See This President Start Embracing The Uprisings In This Country".

Still no examples provided.

How many more do you want?!?

And both these are different from attacks on credibility, a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric where one argues "Beck was wrong about X and Y and Z and P and D and Q, and therefore we ought not to accept that A is true based on his testimony." MM is attacking Beck's credibility, and this is valid.

So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct? Media Matters has tried to pin Glenn when criticizing the Bush and Obama stimulus and bailouts, for once merely implying TARP was good because "it would land the plane in a forest instead of the side of a mountain" even though three days after that statement he very openly and critically opposed it saying it was corrupting and would actually be harmful (A corrective recession is the best cure, etc) - you can Google this for yourself at your own convenience. What about everything they were correct on, since the economy is a fairly objective example, Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices, saying get out of the stock market, attributing it to destruction of the rule of law because of unpredictable changes in regulations, by both Bush and Obama.

Here's another great one from their front page: Beck Follows Goldberg In Cropping Quote About Mussolini, Misattributes It To NY Times yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck: Cavuto: "Cut" Blumenthal "a break," he "stumbled," attacks are "nonsense"

Take a more obscure form of taking things out of context and guilt by association: Former Bush Official: Beck Criticism "Absurd" is nonsense because Glenn was one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, over foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the PATRIOT act, they can't seem to grasp the fact that he doesn't care about party affiliation.

Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beck’s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

For the sake of time I'm not compiling every single error they have ever made, I'm recalling off of memory. Perhaps you want to cite primary sources and specific examples in your own refutations like I at least attempted to do. Unless you're going to follow your own standards I'm done.

Glen Beck

Sorry, but Media Matters consistently and purposefully takes Glenn out of context. They will take short quotes with no surrounding material, which is dangerous to do - Glenn uses a lot of sarcasm on his show, and his staff jokes around a lot as well. When MM cherry picks their quotes it is very easy to paint the entire show as some David Koresh waiting to happen.

As far as I'm concerned, MM has zero credibility because they do this so often. Not just to Glenn either - they do it to anyone they simply don't like. It's wrong, and I'm surprised that people take MM seriously at all anymore.

You can look this up for yourself if you don't believe me, but I'll help you in case it's too difficult.

Want to make fun of Glenn because he cries on radio and television? That's fine. Disagree with him? That's fine too. Don't believe it when he reports on something, provides his sources, and tells his audience to look it up for themselves? Okay, whatever. But don't lie about him and what he says. When you start to attack the person using false pretenses all you do is lose credibility.

I'm not asking you to provide citations, I'm asking you to state what parts of my claims you actually disagree with so I can back them up. I don't want to write a full and expansive term paper on every last detail of my position.

You want a citation? OK, here's a citation. You're the one trying to use the minority definition of what "open standard" means.

Let's take a look at all those definitions.

Definition explicitly allowing royalties:

1. ITU-T definition: "IPRs essential to implement the standard to be licensed to all applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis, either (1) for free and under other reasonable terms and conditions or (2) on reasonable terms and conditions (which may include monetary compensation). Negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are performed outside the SDO."

Definition where royalty-free implementation might be an implied requirement:

1. Venezuelan law definition: "available to everybody for their implementation in free software" (I'd check the cited sources if they were in English)

Organization that doesn't define "open standard" at all (instead defining "open process"):

1. IETF: "the IETF has not adopted a specific definition of 'open standard'" (Though this is worth mentioning: "The IETF IPR policy desires a royalty free model, but is flexible")

Definitions where royalty-free implementation and use is an explicit part of the definition, though degrees of openness are also recognized, so a compromise might be accepted if no standard is available that fully matches the definition:

• South African Government definition: "The intellectual rights required to implement the standard (e.g.essential patent claims) are irrevocably available, without any royalties attached."
• New Zealand official interoperability framework definition: "accessible to everyone free of charge: no discrimination between users, and no payment or other considerations should be required as a condition to use the standard"

Definitions explicitly requiring royalty-free implementation:

• European Union definition: "The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis"
• Danish government definition: "An open standard is accessible to everyone free of charge (i.e. there is no discrimination between users, and no payment or other considerations are required as a condition of use of the standard)"
• French law definition: "any interoperable data format whose specifications are public and without any restriction in their access or implementation"
• Spanish law definition: "its use is not subject to the payment of any intellectual [copyright] or industrial [patents and trademarks] property right"
• Bruce Perens' definition: "No Royalty: Open Standards are free for all to implement, with no royalty or fee."
• Microsoft's definition: "Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis."
• Open Source Initiative's definition: "Patents: All patents essential to implementation of the standard MUST: be licensed under royalty-free terms for unrestricted use, or be covered by a promise of non-assertion when practiced by open source software"
• World Wide Web Consortium's definition: "clear IPR rules for implementation, allowing open source development in the case of Internet/Web technologies" Also, "The W3C Patent Policy is designed to [...] Promote the widespread implementation of those Recommendations on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis" (link)
• Digital Standards Organization definition: "The patent

Um... No, it's not a read-only solution. I've got full read/write on my NTFS. No horses or their respective shit within sight.

here is even a link to get you started. I wish you all the best.

Apple did go after jailbreak, and got stopped by the US Government. I don't know how you could be a reader of slashdot and not have heard about it since this was such a big deal last year. Here's a link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=iphone+jailbreak+legal

Jimmy Page

*I don't think GE's a member anymore, but it's impossible to know for certain how much of their revenue came just from NBC-Universal since I'm incredibly lazy

Really?

Fine, I fixed my original statement.

*I don't think GE's a member anymore, but it's impossible to know for certain how much of their revenue came just from NBC-Universal

Really?

Page 34 of GE's 2009 earnings report: Revenues, NBC Universal, $15,436,000,000; Segment Profit, NBC Universal, $2,264,000,000.

Yeah, it's impossible to know for certain that NBC-Universal made $2 billion in profit last year. Sony Pictures, by the way, collected ¥705,237,000,000 (~ $8 billion) in revenue for FY 2010, and only ¥42,814,000,000 (~ $519 million) in profit; Sony Pictures includes not only MPAA-relevant stuff but TV shows just like NBC-Universal. That's from SONY's annual earnings report, which is admittedly not the first Google result, but whatever, it wasn't that hard to find. (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/ar/2010/index.html)

When you consider how little of Sony or GE's total revenues have to do with their movie-making divisions, and how much Google's revenues are based on Internet services supposedly threatened by these letters (practically all of Google's revenue) I think you can easily realize how much more money Google would be willing to spend on a fight than the MPAA. That is, if these angry letters Google received had any real meaning other than to try to scare the individuals who usually receive them.

> Why the hell are you animating my user interface?

Because users find it less jarring when things move smoothly instead of abruptly. This is why most modern window managers animate things, for example.

> Why is smart search being removed?

Because no one is using it and it's a significant maintenance burden, I would assume.

> What the hell is electrolysis?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=electrolysis+mozilla first hit (multi-process stuff, basically).

> "TBD"? Really?

Yes. There are several different things being discussed in the EcmaScript standards group that would be good to implement, say, but which ones will be close to stable in a month is not clear yet.

> Why oh why is Firefox providing diffs?

The idea is to modify a page via the developer tools, then get a diff between the old and new. It's not targeted at your grandma, but at you 11-year-old son who wants to learn how this web thing works.

This article reminded me of the classic 1970s Xerox ad. But what would they do in weather like that?

Obligatory:

iPad waterproof cases.

Even more obvious: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anti-vaccine+deaths&l=1

But the numbers are there showing that there were hundreds of excess deaths and life-changing disabilities, such as blindness or retardation, from kids not getting measles vaccines.

Link please?

I'm all for vaccination--let's just get that out of the way up front. Wakefield has been up to no good. But Bill Gates is now on record saying that thousands of children have died as a result of Wakefield's work. I have yet to see any empirical evidence of this. Indeed, the only evidence I've seen at all (that Wakefield has had real impact) is anecdotal and often turns out to be attributable to other forces (e.g. illegal immigrants who don't know they can get free vaccinations, religious parents who refuse vaccinations anyway, that sort of thing).

It bothers me that in an argument about the unempirical, biased work of one scientist, we are trotting out in opposition not truth but different lies. This is a very big problem! And yet we are all so angry at Wakefield that no one appears willing to call Gates on the carpet to explain what he is talking about and where his data is coming from. So have we decided that lies and invented statistics are okay so long as they support something we like? Come on, people. We're better than that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=measles+outbreak

And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention [washingtonpost.com]. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head [go.com].

I was in NYC in 2004 during the Republican convention on unrelated business. I saw people getting arrested. The people who were arrested were the people who blocked traffic or some other illegal act. Actually, the police were pretty forgiving. I was physically threatened directly in front of four police officers who did nothing. I didn't press the issue because I had confidence that if the idiot followed through on his threat, the police would have certainly stepped in to stop me before I did any permanent damage to him. The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place. When someone did something that threatened one of those three directives, like throw a brick at a bus carrying delegates, someone got arrested.

As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this. Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member. Otherwise, you'd have to call the Democratic Party a bunch of idiots based on the rants by the current Vice President.

And speaking of the vice president, why is it so many people here say they hate Palin because she's an idiot have nothing bad to say about Joe Biden, who is not only an equal or better idiot than Palin could ever dream of becoming, but is also the Vice fucking President of the United States!!!

And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention [washingtonpost.com]. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head [go.com].

I was in NYC in 2004 during the Republican convention on unrelated business. I saw people getting arrested. The people who were arrested were the people who blocked traffic or some other illegal act. Actually, the police were pretty forgiving. I was physically threatened directly in front of four police officers who did nothing. I didn't press the issue because I had confidence that if the idiot followed through on his threat, the police would have certainly stepped in to stop me before I did any permanent damage to him. The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place. When someone did something that threatened one of those three directives, like throw a brick at a bus carrying delegates, someone got arrested.

As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this. Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member. Otherwise, you'd have to call the Democratic Party a bunch of idiots based on the rants by the current Vice President.

And speaking of the vice president, why is it so many people here say they hate Palin because she's an idiot have nothing bad to say about Joe Biden, who is not only an equal or better idiot than Palin could ever dream of becoming, but is also the Vice fucking President of the United States!!!

Catholics believe in evolution not Christians.

Ah, a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Catholics are Christians, but they are not the only ones who accept evolution.

Your policy is to make fun of creationists? Wow your an enlightened individual.

Well, my tweed smoking vest caught fire, so I got kicked out of the Ivory tower. But, yes, I do make fun of them, because they cling to an antiquated view, despite an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary.

We share 60% of our DNA with a banana. Did chimps maybe evolve from bananas and we evolved from chimps?
We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.
We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.

And you ask why I make fun of creationists!

I would carry on but you probably wouldn't get the point my beliefs have been documented for thousands of years yours for a little over a hundred.

By that logic, the non-existence of airplanes is more accurate than the existence of airplanes. After all, the belief in airplanes has only been popular for a little over a century, but the non-belief in airplanes existed for tens of thousands of years. Or, to use another example, germs don't exist because people have believed in them for less than 50% of recorded history.

I don't have to make fun of evolutionists they do a good job making fun of themselves with their crazy ideas. Like how did the first single celled organism form from amino acids without DNA in the first place?

Let me Google that for you.

Of course, you are playing a game that most two year-olds learn. Keep asking questions until you find one that someone can't answer. The difference between a creationist and a scientist is that a creationist thinks that an unanswered question is proof of a god. This is known as an argument from ignorance, and it can be very harmful. After all, once you have assumed an answer, you have no reason to keep looking. This view stops all progress in its tracks. Scientists see an unanswered question for what it is; an opportunity to learn more about the world.

How did the flagellum motor evolve?

again!

Catholics believe in evolution not Christians.

Ah, a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Catholics are Christians, but they are not the only ones who accept evolution.

Your policy is to make fun of creationists? Wow your an enlightened individual.

Well, my tweed smoking vest caught fire, so I got kicked out of the Ivory tower. But, yes, I do make fun of them, because they cling to an antiquated view, despite an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary.

We share 60% of our DNA with a banana. Did chimps maybe evolve from bananas and we evolved from chimps?
We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.
We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.

And you ask why I make fun of creationists!

I would carry on but you probably wouldn't get the point my beliefs have been documented for thousands of years yours for a little over a hundred.

By that logic, the non-existence of airplanes is more accurate than the existence of airplanes. After all, the belief in airplanes has only been popular for a little over a century, but the non-belief in airplanes existed for tens of thousands of years. Or, to use another example, germs don't exist because people have believed in them for less than 50% of recorded history.

I don't have to make fun of evolutionists they do a good job making fun of themselves with their crazy ideas. Like how did the first single celled organism form from amino acids without DNA in the first place?

Let me Google that for you.

Of course, you are playing a game that most two year-olds learn. Keep asking questions until you find one that someone can't answer. The difference between a creationist and a scientist is that a creationist thinks that an unanswered question is proof of a god. This is known as an argument from ignorance, and it can be very harmful. After all, once you have assumed an answer, you have no reason to keep looking. This view stops all progress in its tracks. Scientists see an unanswered question for what it is; an opportunity to learn more about the world.

How did the flagellum motor evolve?

again!

I still don't understand how this is in any way dodgey or underhanded.

The main explanation is that they're second-sourcing google's results without giving them due credit.

The evidence for this is that there are a number of sites that openly use google's search, and google doesn't object. There's always lmgtfy.com, of course, which credits google in their name. There's dogpile.com, which searches a list of sites that includes google and has its own scheme for ordering the results.

But bing does this without acknowledging google. When google point out what bing is doing, the reply is to deny it. Microsoft is pretending that the results are bing's, and weren't gotten from another search site.

In scholarly, scientific and mathematical fields, failing to credit your sources is one of the cardinal sins. But if you properly credit your sources, they smile and thank you for the reference. This is basically a case of the same thing in the commercial world.

Some years back, there was a related fuss over Sun's use of Open Source software. The problem wasn't that Sun was including this software in their distributions. Everyone approved of that. Sun's sin was that they stripped out the attributions in the code, claiming in effect that it was all Sun's creation. They got into a lot of trouble with the Open Source crowd until Sun apologized and corrected the problem. If you're not going to pay someone for using their stuff, you should at least acknowledge their work.

Maybe, instead of trying to pretend that they've made a big mistake, Microsoft should just 'fess up, apologize, and add an explanation similar to dogpile's saying whose data they're including. I just did a dogpile search for a question on a mailing list that I read, and the results all include a small-print statement like "Found on: Google, Bing, Yahoo! Search" or "Found exclusively on: Google". If bing were to do this, google would probably withdraw their lawsuit.

Alternatively, bing users might just start using dogpile, which is a lot more honest about where they get their information.