Slashdot Mirror

I had to read the summary 3 times before I actually understood what transpired. It would be nice if:

a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anonymous

b)You explained what the Ministry of Sound is.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ministry+of+sound

I had to read the summary 3 times before I actually understood what transpired. It would be nice if:

a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anonymous

b)You explained what the Ministry of Sound is.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ministry+of+sound

Numerous studies have confirmed the effect over the years. The general consensus is that it comes down to identifying words by their overall shape and reading them in one go when they're in mixed case vs reading them one letter at a time in ALLCAPS. But don't take my word for it.

>>>>>I saw Democrats/liberals carrying Hitler signs.

[citation needed]
.

You're joking right??? Here let me google that for you:
General images: http://www.google.com/images?q=bush+nazi
Protester posters: http://www.google.com/images?q=bush+nazi+protest
AND: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=bush+nazi
.

>>>clearly two wrongs make a right, so you're now allowed to do it? Is that how that works?

(whoosh). You missed theaveng's point. It is hypocritical for the Democrats to say "Nazi posters are wrong" when they themselves were holding similar posters ~4 years ago. Some even showed-up at a Nancy Pelosi speech in 2007, and she said, "That's okay. I don't agree that Bush is Hitler but it's free speech and they are allowed to do it. They can stay in the room." - Basically giving tacit approval.

But NOW, three years later, suddenly Ms. Pelosi and colleagues are saying it's wrong. If she thought it was okay three years ago (protected by free speech) then she should think it's okay now. Hypocrite.

Here's your link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=synthesis+3d+from+2d

Thanks for googling it for us, now could you pleas point out the entry with a realistic stereoscopic image produced from a piece of 70's film stock?

Here's your link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=synthesis+3d+from+2d

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

kicked by the U.S. about 150 years ago

See what I mean? Imperialists pigs. I'm still living under their oppressive regime.

Nascar... Never sat through a race.
Pickled Pigs feet... That stereo type may have worked 149 years ago.
SEC? Yeah, you got me, roll tide.

I do have a Gadsden flag on my SUV. This one was almost lost to history but Obama has renewed our interest in it.

Here's one notable example. I'm sure you can find many others.

Part of the problem is that filing a DMCA notice requires no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, and that the automated systems used in detecting infringement are far from perfect.

I want to create a redirect loop. Just imagine, google to tinyurl to bit.ly to dilv.it back to google

let me google that for you

Well if you're looking for the rapport, perhaps you can't find it because it's called a report.

Let's spend a second and take a look. First link! It seems that it's not all in the weight after all. Man, it is hard to find information these days, perhaps that's why you were under this bee delusion for so long.

Citation needed on the should part. Really?

OK, my citation is Paul Krugman on stimulus spending. Here, let me google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=paul+krugman+stimulus+spending

Conservative growth is less than democratic growth.

I dispute that. Show me that in budget form, over the last 40 years. If anything it seems the exact opposite - Republicans for the last 40 years have run deficits and enlarged government far in excess of Democrats. I have no idea how, for example, Reagan is looked at as some small-government hero. He **drastically** enlarged the size, scope, and power of the Federal government - and when even that wasn't enough executive power, he directly violated the Constitution with Iran-Contra.

Not sure how someone older, who usually hangs out with older and younger, is assessed to knowing LESS history given they've lived longer...

People are assessed as knowing less, if what they "know" is proven wrong by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that's analyzed as experts.

For the overwhelming number of experts, stimulus spending and progressive taxation where the wealthier pay a greater share **works** for America, and "supply-side" aka Voodoo Economics does not.

0 results? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=0x6692d179032205

> I don't get the joke and am posting anon to save face. Is it a British thing, like a pun on pram/perambulator?

Kind of...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Monty+Python+Camelot+Song

Insurgents. Yes, insurgents. You may ignore the colonel, you may call him a liar, you may brand the military a bunch of diabolical murderers - but that doesn't make you right. Try googling "reuters" "insurgent" and "embedded" - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=reuters+embedded+insurgent I especially like this one, http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php But, like religion, people won't believe anything that they haven't already decided on.

HERE: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=U.S.+supreme+court+rulings+first+amendment+threats

You should read ALL the links that pop up, but one of the key ones says: "Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts' statement was political hyperbole." (1969) And there are SEVERAL more court cases along that line.

First Amendment provides protection.

It clearly says no speech shall be abridged by Congress. The end. No inferior law can overrule that superior law, according to our longest-serving Chief Justice John Marshall and basic jurisprudence.

I like how you twist it around to blame me, when it's your OWN laziness. (No wonder professors get frustrated with students.)

HERE: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=U.S.+supreme+court+rulings+first+amendment+threats [lmgtfy.com]

And one of the top links discusses the death threat protection. "Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts' statement was political hyperbole." (1969) And there are SEVERAL more examples along that line.

First Amendment provides protection. It clearly says no speech shall be abridged by Congress. The end. No inferior law can overrule that superior law, according to our longest-serving Chief Justice John Marshall.

I like how you twist it around to blame me, when it's your OWN laziness. I told you to look at wikipedia for SCOTUS cases, but for some reason you expect me to waste MY time doing YOUR research. I don't need to do the research, because I've already done it. Now it's YOUR turn. (No wonder professors get frustrated with students.)

HERE: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=U.S.+supreme+court+rulings+first+amendment+threats

And one of the top links discusses the death threat protection, which you could have found yourself if you had bothered to do even 5 minutes of student-level research. "Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts' statement was political hyperbole." (1969) And there are SEVERAL more examples along that line.

First Amendment provides protection. It clearly says no speech shall be abridged by Congress. The end. No inferior law can overrule that superior law, according to our longest-serving Chief Justice John Marshall.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=swiss+canton

And am I the only one who just does not click on any 'shortened' URL because you never know what it's going to take you to?

What the hell Slashdot? I come into this thread with 10 mod points determined to mod up the first person to link to a URL expander, and there's not a single one.

Let me help.

I'll do even better than that Mr. Anonymous. I'll show you videos AND relevant articles:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=police+abuse

Your problem, sir, is one I refer to as "reading comprehension failure"; possibly compounded by some things I call "dumb as a rock" and "willful refusal to be educated", but let's take one thing at a time. I'd rather think you didn't have time to read the material, or look it up, than think you were just too stupid to comprehend it.

Please allow me the privilege of raising your awareness level.

For instance, try this link. It should lead you to a wiki article on breeder reactors, along with a nice little news article about India's new reactor projects. Note: projects, plural; as in more than one.

Your reading, at this point, may enlighten you to the concept of a "sealed breeder reactor", which produces far fewer waste products than conventional reactors, is easier to control, and should it have a "meltdown", the effects are much less pronounced than "conventional" reactors (as in, the nearest 30 miles aren't irradiated, and nothing blows up).

A little further reading may grant you the information required to understand that thorium is hugely more prevalent than you seem to currently believe, and is actually easier to produce at a fissionable quality than uranium. As a matter of fact, one way to produce uranium is to put thorium in a breeder reactor. Ooh, look, a two-for-one deal!

So, it's cheaper, easier, and safer... a direct contradiction of your uninformed statements of "fact".

Yes, reactors of many types have been built. The problem (and my point) is that none of those experimental reactors built have delivered the safe and inexpensive power that was promised.

Worse, none have even shown that the respective technology has the potential to become safe and inexpensive.

Conclusion: Once you have a basic understanding of the topics you so vehemently protest, perhaps then we will listen to your meandering bullshit.

Your problem, sir, is one I refer to as "reading comprehension failure"; possibly compounded by some things I call "dumb as a rock" and "willful refusal to be educated", but let's take one thing at a time. I'd rather think you didn't have time to read the material, or look it up, than think you were just too stupid to comprehend it.

Please allow me the privilege of raising your awareness level.

For instance, try this link. It should lead you to a wiki article on breeder reactors, along with a nice little news article about India's new reactor projects. Note: projects, plural; as in more than one.

Your reading, at this point, may enlighten you to the concept of a "sealed breeder reactor", which produces far fewer waste products than conventional reactors, is easier to control, and should it have a "meltdown", the effects are much less pronounced than "conventional" reactors (as in, the nearest 30 miles aren't irradiated, and nothing blows up).

A little further reading may grant you the information required to understand that thorium is hugely more prevalent than you seem to currently believe, and is actually easier to produce at a fissionable quality than uranium. As a matter of fact, one way to produce uranium is to put thorium in a breeder reactor. Ooh, look, a two-for-one deal!

So, it's cheaper, easier, and safer... a direct contradiction of your uninformed statements of "fact".

Yes, reactors of many types have been built. The problem (and my point) is that none of those experimental reactors built have delivered the safe and inexpensive power that was promised.

Worse, none have even shown that the respective technology has the potential to become safe and inexpensive.

Conclusion: Once you have a basic understanding of the topics you so vehemently protest, perhaps then we will listen to your meandering bullshit.

What do you suggest I heat my house with? Solar? Yeah, that's going to work just *great* in the winter when I get six hours of sunlight.

Actually, sure. Why not? Read up on Passive Annual Solar Heating. Basically, it's an earth berm that stores the heat during the summer and releases it during the winter... keeping your house at a comfortable temperature all year 'round, without those pesky power bills. I know of a guy out in the midwest that does this, and his power bill is in the teens...

On the other hand, you could use a different system (I can't recall the name), that essentially consists of a big sheet of glass in front of a dark-colored wall, with vents at the top and bottom that can be used to either exhaust warm air from or cycle warm air into the area being climate-controlled.

Ideally, you could utilize some combination of the myriad solar heating/cooling systems available, after looking into which one(s) would be most suitable for your climate/terrain.

Oh, and here's a link about a company that does it. I'm not advocating this company, but they have some cool pictures. Guess I should throw in the obligatory wiki link about Passive Solar, too. Want more info? Try this link.

Here's a hint - you don't get hybrid tractors, and if you did they mostly wouldn't make sense. Neither would electric ones.

Why not? Seems to me that tractors and other farm equipment would be an awesome use for electric motors, since they have a vastly different power curve than combustion engines... Why, exactly, do electric tractors not make sense?

TL;DR: Learn to research before opening your mouth; Stop shoving your foot until you taste kneecap.

It's one of those "if you don't know, the question was not for you" sort of things. But so you can learn, let me google that for you :)

Burning books which express politically unacceptable view points is a prime marker of an oppressive government or society.

So is shutting down a political or religious website which is viewed unfavorably by society or the government. If it was done out of fear of reprisal by Muslims or because of Political Correctness it says loads about the "land of the free and the home of the brave".

We all condemn the Inquisition because it represented an unholy alliance between church and state. If you think the Inquisition was bad then research the doctrine of Abrogation practiced by teachers of Islam, Sharia Law, and see which version of democracy you'd like to live with.

Burning books which express politically unacceptable view points is a prime marker of an oppressive government or society.

So is shutting down a political or religious website which is viewed unfavorably by society or the government. If it was done out of fear of reprisal by Muslims or because of Political Correctness it says loads about the "land of the free and the home of the brave".

We all condemn the Inquisition because it represented an unholy alliance between church and state. If you think the Inquisition was bad then research the doctrine of Abrogation practiced by teachers of Islam, Sharia Law, and see which version of democracy you'd like to live with.

And the day before Obama spoke, I had some pizza. The chain of events is undeniable!

Lisa called, she wants her rock back.

Even stranger, if you do a Google search for "search engine", Bing, Altavista, and Ask.com all show up ranked higher than the first Google-related site.

This may help...

Better to point them to something like Just Fucking Google It.

I prefer LMGTFY. Passive aggressive ftw.

Here.

You do realize you can just google it right?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jury+nullification

I'd be interested to look at these boxes.
When you say "WD" are you refering to Western Digital or some other company?
I'd be grateful if you could post a link.

Sure, this is what I did: linky

The WHO is part of the UN and has had many accomplishments, such as eliminating smallpox.

I have an idea. Instead of telling you the answer, I'll teach you how to find answers yourself.

Let me Google that for you

I know it is much easier to respond blindly in knee-jerk fashion, but your UID suggests you should know better. Perhaps you bought it on eBay.

It's a quote from the constitution, specifically the first amendment. LMGTFY http://lmgtfy.com/?q=congress+shall+make+no+law

LMAHREFTFY

Congress shall make now law...

On the other hand, if anyone wants to point me to how to move the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the top right hand side of windows I'd appreciate it

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=move+the+minimize%2Fmaximize%2Fclose+buttons+to+the+top+right+hand+side&l=1

Let me do you a favour.

No, your second example is actually in very common usage. Nobody I know calls their 1911 types (Kimber, Colt, etc) a "semi-automatic" unless they're being pedantic.

"The .45 ACP (11.43x23mm) (Automatic Colt Pistol), also known as the .45 Auto by C.I.P."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_ACP

A *lot* of people call them a 45 auto. It's because there was also a 45 single action in popular use at the time, often called a Colt 45.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army

Example: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=45+automatic
A large majority of the hits show that most 1911s are referred to *still* as the 45 automatic (or 45 ACP)

[..] I do find it quite difficult to [..] constantly download [..]

There's an easy fix for that problem!

it's at groklaw.com

To some degree we should count ourselves lucky that Google is both dominant and public. Imagine all of that information (still) being used against you, but you not having any idea of the vast quantity and depth of correlation that could be done.

The problem with Schimdt't statement is not its truth, but the double standard he is employing personally. He is the guy who tells us how everything is indexable and discoverable, and how we should grow up and learn to deal with it - yet this is the same guy whose private residence is blurred out on Google Maps:

Eric Schmidt's house blurred out in Street View

Also, why does a Google search on his address, "650 Ashley Road, Montecito, CA 93108, United States" curiously not come up with the information that this is the address of Eric Schmidt? I checked the first 50 hits - zero, nil, nada mention that this is a famous address:

Google Search for "650 Ashley Road, Montecito, CA 93108, United States"

Is the Google search engine really this bad at correlating personal information?

I will respect his stance as intellectually consistent the moment Google gives me prominent facilities that enables me to blur out my house in Google Maps (so that casual burglars don't see the secluded route of access which is normally hidden by trees, or that burglars cannot track changes in time to discover a more prosperous dwelling, or that burglars don't get a chance snapshot of construction works showing the location of key security facilities such as cables, etc.) and enables me to hide personal data once it's online.

Right now he is one of the privileged few who enjoys levels of online privacy not afforded to me. That fundamental asymmetry is a problem - how will powerful shapers of policy learn the true benefits of privacy if they don't get the same online treatment as us?

Heh....sure, the library. That's where I went when I was researching this stuff. You'll find lots of good books. But since you're lazy and prefer to resort to ad hominem attacks, I can help you a bit.

My google-fu > than yours apparently...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=linux+wall+wart

Here you go, you literal bore: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=facetious

If they object, why haven't they and their staff managed to come up with a proposal of their own?

She did come up with (or at least co-sponsor) a proposal: the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009.

What research did you do before posting this opinion? Reading Eshoo's wiki page or a basic search would have brought up the very bill you like to pretend doesn't exist.

What's BC?

Hint: it's not Boston College. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=bc

Everyone mentions it.

First of all: Show us an example/proof of this. I, for one, would like to see this, as I am sure would others reading here.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ceo+overpaid

which only leads to my next point: That the stock market is a bullshit con game. Anything but preferred stock's bullshit anyhow (especially at bankruptcy payouts time to secured creditors & the like), and you're pointing out the other downside in an utter lack of say in anything

Dividends seem all right. Any investment I make that is profitable for me is fine. If I actually care about the company's future or its employees, though, I would want to have voting stock.

That said, I have no investments right now except for my IRA fund.

Most of them couldn't tie their fucking shoe themselves, and they merely use others and profit by those others' skills. I know, I have worked in the Fortune 100-500 alongside many of these schmucks and said to myself "how the HELL did this b.s. artist get this position? He's as dumb as a box of rocks!" until I find out that many are either part of some 'secret handshake club', or are related to a majority stockholder, or are boards of directors' appointed flunky (someone who was in their frat in college etc.).

That does not matter. According to that guy's point, if the CEO thinks he can do better on his own, regardless of his actual competence, he'll walk if he does not get enough pay.

I split in their general direction.

Who/what the fuck are they, Mr. Summary Writer?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=IDSIA

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipad+battery+life

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=espionage+statue+of+limitations