Forget voting people into office. Get a few hundred people to descend on it at night with sledgehammers and smash it to bits.
If you want to be less illegal but make as much of a point, build some lightweight walls beforehand, carry them in, and erect a building around it. Be sure to have people remain next to them so they can't charge you with littering.
Oh no! He can't do his job of pretending to be a journalist so that the briefing room looks better deposed towards Bush! Well, damn.
And you aren't paying attention to the real story or the gay story.
The real story: A non-journalist was paid, yes, paid, to stand bald-face in the press room and act like a member of the press by the very people he was questioning. Yes, it is their press room, and legally they could turn it into a swedish spa, but that's not the point. The point is, once again, the administation was lying to us to make themselves look better. And, once again, they appear not to have broken any laws.
The gay story: He was running gay domains, and he releases reworded GOP press releases and has indulged in gay baiting repeated on, apparently, his own. As he is basically a right wing troll, this is not surprising. His attempt to blame it on 'parent companies' or 'before he was born again' is not at all plausible. He himself appears shirtless on some of these domains. This, by itself, would be enough to make the rounds on the blogs, as yet another example of right-wing hypocritisy (re: Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction), although it would not make the news, except this guy, thanks to the real story, is now as well known as Rush.
Anyone trying to pretend the important story is the gay story is almost certainly a) a 12 year old, or b) someone trying to divert attention away from the fact the administation, yet again, is lying to people, by representing a paid shill as an actual journalist. The only reason the gay story is important because it shows this guy wasn't just a shill, he was a shill who probably didn't believe in the thing he was shilling.
As for whether or not he's gay...I promise never to say anything about it, until he write something defending comparisions of homosexuality to beastality. Again.
So the fact that they're delibrately loading in people who ask questions they want, instead of giving that space to people who actually ask important issues, is completely meaningless to you?
It's bad enough journalists feel they can't ask probing questions of they won't be allowed back in. Now they're delibrately keeping journalists out by allowing pretend journalists to sit in the seats and waste everyone's time.
In the whole scope of things, this is a very small 'crime', in fact, it's not really that bad at all. Hell, they could accomplish this by having the briefer read a statement beforehand and removing a seat from the room. The problem isn't 'having one less journalist and spouting propaganda'. The latter is expected during a briefing, at least before the questions, and the former, for all I know, changes monthly.
The point is they've made a mockery of the entire press briefing by their apparent belief they can do any damn thing they want.
Hey, you're not allowed to quote Ayn Rand in a discussion about copyright. The Objectivists think that making a copy of someone's CD is initiating force against them, and thus should be illegal.
The question isn't what you are willing to risk. No one's thinking about requiring people to carry concealed weapons. (Well, hilariously, a town down here in Georgia actually does require all 'head of households' to possess a firearm for defense in the house, legally. Although no one actually follows that law. And you don't have to carry it around.)
The question is: Is the mugger willing to risk taking your wallet if the odds of you carrying a concealed weapon are one of the twenty, instead of one out of five hundred where concealed weapons are illegal? (All numbers completely made up.)
It's not really about reducing risk to you...it's about increasing the risk of people commiting crime. It's why concealed weapons are important...it doesn't help at all if they can just choose not to mug people with guns.
The deterent abilities of jail, alone, does not work. So increase their risk of getting caught, increase their risk of..um...rolling critical failure and getting shot, decrease their rewards (dye packs during bank robberies), crime needs to be fought from a variety of angles. Hopefully without turning the police in the military, but I think that ship has sailed.
Someone getting a gun pulled on them while they're mugging someone makes them think long and hard about mugging someone else, assuming they didn't get caught.
Also assuming they didn't get shot, but that's a safe assumption. Most guns that stop crimes do not get fired. It's 'You have a gun? Well..so do I!' and the mugger runs like hell, because getting in a firefight is no one's idea of a good time, and it will immediately summon the police.
I will agree that being armed is not an intrinsic human right. We do have an intrinsic right to life (and thus, self defense), but I don't think it makes sense to extend rights to 'You can do whatever you want to prepare to stop people from infringing that right.'. That way leads madness. 'He might try to kill me someday so I get to kill him.'
It is, however, a right granted in the bill of rights, not because it's intrinsic, but so we can overthrow the government whenever we need to. While people against gun control love the 2nd admentment (And, in fact, are 100% correct about what it's trying to say, despite the gun control lobby trying to mislead people about 'militias'.), the point of that amendment isn't to reduce crime at all, which is actually the most useful reason to not have gun control.
You apparently don't remember what I was talking about. If the Federal government was stepping in ans saying 'the speed limit here is obnoxiously low, raise it', I'd actually be okay with that. I think the state governments could do that just better, but they seem unwilling to. (Most states actually have laws about 'speed traps' of some sort, but they are mostly about where people were tricked into not knowing the limit.)
But the speed limit meddling I'm talking about is when the Fed tied Federal highway funds to the requirement to lower the speed limit to 55. And it wasn't to save lives, it was to save gas.
As for stupid election results...were any of them stupier than electing GW the second time? Hell, were any of them stupider than electing him the first time? He had no merits whatsoever, and had been riding on his name his entire life. We (in theory) elected him because Gore was boring and/or we were too stupid to see any difference between him and Clinton.
Oh, don't think I was actually describing the system as it exist, but merely the system I believed in 8 years ago.
The Republicans probably would gut the programs, and they probably would have done it then, also. 17 year olds are often poor judges of character.
OTOH, the Democrats just seem to build broken things to fix broken things, instead of actually going through the existing system and fixing it. For example, poor public school in minority areas are producing poor students. Solution: Affirmative action. Instead of fixing the damn problems in the schools, which, BTW, have only gotten worse.
Or excessive violence in certain areas. Solution: Ban guns. Instead of trying to fix the completely broken communities. A more completely backassward solution I have never heard of. It's like trying to stop a river flooding by banning bottled water.
Of course, it's all rather moot now. Talking about the two party's approach to the government at this point is like talking who has the nicer tie, the man on the left or the man on the right, and ignoring that the man on the right has started juggling live grenades and chainsaws over your head.
The man on the left may be confused at times, but I'll take 'confused' over 'lying warmongering insane meglomanics' any day.
Good. Recycling pisses me off. Not doing it, the actual concept of it.
Logically, if it was cheaper to produce paper from paper instead of trees, they should be paying me for the fucking paper. Otherwise, recycling paper is just masturbation...the stuff grows on trees.
The same with glass. Um, hello? We cannot under any circumstances run out of glass. It's made out of sand!
Now, I will admit, in theory, that recycling those two items could save energy but somehow paradoxically cost more, but that really doesn't make any sense at all. I can't think of any costs for recycling materials that don't involve non-renewable energy. (Whereas, say, paper from trees requires purchasing trees which grew from sunlight, or at least owning land.)
I used to think metal recycling made sense, because while the above was true, we could actually run out of it, but then I realized we'd just start mining landfills if we ever did, so don't worry about it.
About the only think it makes sense to recycle is plastics, and ironically that's the thing least likely to be recycled in communities.
Now, what about the 'we're running out of landfills'? Well, good. I will continue to fill up landfills near me with paper and sand and you can save your landfills for toxic batteries and whatnot.;)
You know, there are a lot of possibly made up stories out there about stupid enviromental protection decisions. But the solution to 'silly EPA said there's an endangered bird somewhere in the woods, so we cannot build anything whatsoever here' is not to lie and say it's not there. It's to change the rules. Um, duh.
Except the voters would kill him. It's all nice to hear sob stories about how someone can't do something with their land because of the guberment randomly deciding they can't, but in the real world, just wait till they start talking about how there are only 30 Wild Pine Goats, 8 of whom live in the area under discussion, etc, etc, and the tide of public opinion would rapidly side with the almsot extinct animals.
Looking back in history, I can't think of any president that wanted to do something that the American people had decided not to do, so he asked specialists in the field to lie for him so he'd have justification to do it.
*thinks a second*
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (I actually know the real expression, and even what it means!)
I will stand up, right now, as someone who generally agreed with Republicans, or at least what I was told they stood for. Somethings, the Democrats are just completely stupid on, like gun control, and unwillingness to re-evaluate government programs.
I thought the debt is a bad thing, and I was always for a balanced budget. I thought we should lower Federal taxes once we got the debt until control, mainly so we could raise local taxes.
And I thought the government should stop screwing around with state issues, like the speed limit.
I wasn't entirely sure about social issues...I thought maybe Clinton was right and we needed national health care. And I always thought abortion was a stupid issue, like prostitution...all you can do is drive it underground. Even though Roe vs. Wade was the stupidest decision ever. I didn't think we needed affirmative action, but figured the whole thing was overblown.
If you'd asked me who I would have voted for if I'd been a month older for the Clinton/Dole election, I honestly don't know who I would have picked. Probably Clinton, simply because the attacks on him seemed completely irrelevant to his job performance.
The relationship between the hypothetical Republican party I was told about as a high school senior and the actual Republican party at this point is left as exercise for the reader.
Preferably one with degrees in astronomy and transfinite math.
You know, Bush critics do have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. An agenda's just a what you're trying to accomplish. The problem is when people claim to have one agenda and actually have another.
The agenda of people critizing Bush is roughly 'Someone please stop this madman. Why the hell are you voting for him, what is wrong with you people? No, seriously. Why are you defending him? Is everybody here very stoned?'.
It's not much of an agenda, and it's not like it's a secret or anything. At this point, a lot of people who used to have that agenda have actually forgotten to do anything besides stand and stare in pure amazement.
I'll be the first to admit, there are people claiming to have that agenda, who actually have other ones. But not most people.
Now, the people defending Bush...most of them have no agenda at all. They have been told they should try to accomplish X by doing Y, but Y cannot possibly lead to X. And accomplishing X is usually a pretty dodgy idea in the first place. You can replace X with 'lower taxes' or 'get rid of homos' or 'fight the liberal media', and the Y is almost always 'protect the Republican president'.
You clearly chose 15 as it is the largest number for which your statement is true. Change that number to 5 years, or 20 years, and the opposite is true.
It's only true for, what, 9 to 15 years?
What the hell it has to do with anything, I do not know. That sort of random political statistic usually means someone is talking gibberish.
As an event horizon is a boundary, by defination, that's not too suprising. Boundaries on simple 3 dimensional objects must be curved 2d objects, because they're just marking the outside from the inside.
With black holes, unlike stars and planets, there is no inside object, there is no difference between the outside area and the inside area, except anything in the inside area can't cross the boundary to the outside. Not due to the boundary, but due to the gravity gradient at that point, which we have marked with an imaginary 'event horizon'.
And, of course, technically, a black hole is just a point, it has no dimensions. However, saying it's not a star is premature. We don't know what's going on in that point, so saying there's no fusion there is a bit silly. (Smashing everything into a single point would appear to be the defination of 'fusion'.) We could easily define it as 'dense enough to cause hydroden fusion', which a black hole would be, pretending it hadn't compressed its matter entirely out of the known universe.
Not that I'm entirely sure we want black holes to be defined as stars. What if we run across microscopic black holes, containing 50 tons of matter and lasting for mere seconds? Calling 50 tons of matter a star is a bit silly...that's not even a planetoid. It just so happens that all the black holes we know about come from stars, but everything comes from stars!
In fact, I don't think 'black hole' is properly a 'astronomical object type'. It's just an 'object type', like a table or a lump of iron. We just happen to locate them in space. What we call them there could depend on how they function, like we do with 'lumps of iron', which can be planets, meteorites, moons, artifical satellites, whatever.
Did you actually read that URL? Someone got on MAPS by running an open relay. It's right there, in their own words. As that was what MAPS was for, I fail to see the problem.
And, at that point, everyone was operating in the 'ask people to close their open relays first, and then block them if they refuse', so they were knowingly operating an open relay and refusing to close it. At the time that 95% of all spam was sent through open relays. (Nowdays, you just get blocked, period. No one has time to track down idiots anymore, no one emails you first.)
And, my God, he got sendmail to not relay by default. That bastard! No, wait, that makes me respect Vixie more than I already did.
There's absolutely nothing there to support the claim these people were blacklisted by the (now defunct, thanks to lawsuits) MAPS because they were a competitor.
And, by their suggesting the nuisance lawsuits that caused MAPS, a valuable resource, to close down, I think it's rather obvious who was attacking a competitor. And it wasn't MAPS.
Of course, it was removed because the Roman Christians were whining, not because of any religious reason. They didn't see why they had to follow Jewish dietary law.
If there had been a devout homosexual community instead, you know what? Same thing would have happened for them.
But someone once asked Jesus what the most important laws were. He gave the actual important commandments...throw the ten commandments away, these are the two commandments.
He said the first was: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.
And the second: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Then he continued: All the law and the writings of the prophets depend on these two commands.
Anyone who tried to read any law from the Bible that doesn't originate from one of those two commandments is reading something that isn't God's rules. They might be laws to keep Israel intact, or curtail disease, or outdated commands about the treatment of women and slaves, but they aren't the rules from God.
No, I'm not going to debate people who say Christianity is a bunch of nonsense...it's not really that important to me. I'm just saying, Jesus actually came out and said, 'If you get nothing else from me, then at least love God unconditionally and love everyone else as much as you love yourself. The rest of it should logically follow from that start.'.
Except that driving slower is not automatically driving safer. And it's certainly not safer if there are other cars. Accidents are linked to speed differences, not to speed. If everyone was going 140 in the same direction, we'd have less car accidents than we do now. (Of course, on most roads, you automatically have a speed difference of your_speed * 2 with oncoming traffic.)
And the same sort of logic, aka, 'I can't get caught driving while drunk', results in hit-and-runs. I'm not saying that you'd do that, but that's where it comes from.
Wait, wait, does it apply to the entire purchase? Not just the first ten gallons or whatever?
If so, why don't you let it run until your gas is free, and then take a day off, go down to the gas station, and give everyone free gas for the entire day? And rent a trailer, purchase a dozen fifty gallon barrels, and start with them?
No, I'm saying MAI doesn't matter because 117 gives the owner of the copy the right to copy it around in memory, and the company that hired Peak did not purchase a copy, they merely licensed it. (They actually did license it, too, it wasn't some backdoor EULA.)
Copying into RAM is an infringement unless 117 applies, and 117 only applies to the owner of a copy. If you are the owner of the copy, you don't need permission. (BTW, there's a law being considered to fix this, changing 'owner' to 'lawful possessor'.)
Now...
As for ProCD, the logic there is absurd. And opens up absurd loopholes...all I have to do is claim that I myself did not purchase the software, but was given it as a gift, sans packaging. Or maybe the packaging was damaged right there. Or maybe I can't read. (Which is not only crazy, but somehow means that someone who didn't actually own their copy legally sold it to me, which is inane.)
And the court was seriously confused about who was making the offer. Their logic only works if the software company was making the offer, and someone walked up and said 'sure', like tickets with rules on the back. But a package on a shelf is not an offer, and it's certainly not an offer from the software company.
Walking up and handing it to the cashier is the offer, and the customer does that to the merchant, not the software manufacturer. Just because the product packaging claims to contain additional restrictive terms on behalf of the manufacturer (Which is legal), doesn't mean that when I make an offer to a third party that I expect them to apply. If I purchase a stereo in the orginal box at a yard sell with a two year warranty, I'm not expecting to get the warranty.
It's even more absurd when you consider that, while most additional terms do contain restrictions on what the service was labeled as, they don't restrict you from doing something that you legally could do otherwise. If I purchase an 'open ended' plane ticket with blackout dates on the back, well, I didn't have any right at all to be on their plane anyway. It's a restriction on what they have to do in return for your cash, not a restriction on something you could do anyway. Whereas I did have a legal right to copy any software I am legally owner of, which (Pretending EULAs are valid here), I would have been had they not stuck the terms there.
I.e., most 'small print' slightly changes things, and it's understandable to allow customers to agree without seeing. (Although absurd to not let them see, like with most software. Some software companies just lost a suit over that, IIRC.) It's not understandable to change the entire terms of a sale, especially when that sale was with a third party!
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to be less illegal but make as much of a point, build some lightweight walls beforehand, carry them in, and erect a building around it. Be sure to have people remain next to them so they can't charge you with littering.
And you aren't paying attention to the real story or the gay story.
The real story: A non-journalist was paid, yes, paid, to stand bald-face in the press room and act like a member of the press by the very people he was questioning. Yes, it is their press room, and legally they could turn it into a swedish spa, but that's not the point. The point is, once again, the administation was lying to us to make themselves look better. And, once again, they appear not to have broken any laws.
The gay story: He was running gay domains, and he releases reworded GOP press releases and has indulged in gay baiting repeated on, apparently, his own. As he is basically a right wing troll, this is not surprising. His attempt to blame it on 'parent companies' or 'before he was born again' is not at all plausible. He himself appears shirtless on some of these domains. This, by itself, would be enough to make the rounds on the blogs, as yet another example of right-wing hypocritisy (re: Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction), although it would not make the news, except this guy, thanks to the real story, is now as well known as Rush.
Anyone trying to pretend the important story is the gay story is almost certainly a) a 12 year old, or b) someone trying to divert attention away from the fact the administation, yet again, is lying to people, by representing a paid shill as an actual journalist. The only reason the gay story is important because it shows this guy wasn't just a shill, he was a shill who probably didn't believe in the thing he was shilling.
As for whether or not he's gay...I promise never to say anything about it, until he write something defending comparisions of homosexuality to beastality. Again.
It's bad enough journalists feel they can't ask probing questions of they won't be allowed back in. Now they're delibrately keeping journalists out by allowing pretend journalists to sit in the seats and waste everyone's time.
In the whole scope of things, this is a very small 'crime', in fact, it's not really that bad at all. Hell, they could accomplish this by having the briefer read a statement beforehand and removing a seat from the room. The problem isn't 'having one less journalist and spouting propaganda'. The latter is expected during a briefing, at least before the questions, and the former, for all I know, changes monthly.
The point is they've made a mockery of the entire press briefing by their apparent belief they can do any damn thing they want.
Hey, you're not allowed to quote Ayn Rand in a discussion about copyright. The Objectivists think that making a copy of someone's CD is initiating force against them, and thus should be illegal.
The question is: Is the mugger willing to risk taking your wallet if the odds of you carrying a concealed weapon are one of the twenty, instead of one out of five hundred where concealed weapons are illegal? (All numbers completely made up.)
It's not really about reducing risk to you...it's about increasing the risk of people commiting crime. It's why concealed weapons are important...it doesn't help at all if they can just choose not to mug people with guns.
The deterent abilities of jail, alone, does not work. So increase their risk of getting caught, increase their risk of..um...rolling critical failure and getting shot, decrease their rewards (dye packs during bank robberies), crime needs to be fought from a variety of angles. Hopefully without turning the police in the military, but I think that ship has sailed.
Someone getting a gun pulled on them while they're mugging someone makes them think long and hard about mugging someone else, assuming they didn't get caught.
Also assuming they didn't get shot, but that's a safe assumption. Most guns that stop crimes do not get fired. It's 'You have a gun? Well..so do I!' and the mugger runs like hell, because getting in a firefight is no one's idea of a good time, and it will immediately summon the police.
I will agree that being armed is not an intrinsic human right. We do have an intrinsic right to life (and thus, self defense), but I don't think it makes sense to extend rights to 'You can do whatever you want to prepare to stop people from infringing that right.'. That way leads madness. 'He might try to kill me someday so I get to kill him.'
It is, however, a right granted in the bill of rights, not because it's intrinsic, but so we can overthrow the government whenever we need to. While people against gun control love the 2nd admentment (And, in fact, are 100% correct about what it's trying to say, despite the gun control lobby trying to mislead people about 'militias'.), the point of that amendment isn't to reduce crime at all, which is actually the most useful reason to not have gun control.
But the speed limit meddling I'm talking about is when the Fed tied Federal highway funds to the requirement to lower the speed limit to 55. And it wasn't to save lives, it was to save gas.
As for stupid election results...were any of them stupier than electing GW the second time? Hell, were any of them stupider than electing him the first time? He had no merits whatsoever, and had been riding on his name his entire life. We (in theory) elected him because Gore was boring and/or we were too stupid to see any difference between him and Clinton.
The Republicans probably would gut the programs, and they probably would have done it then, also. 17 year olds are often poor judges of character.
OTOH, the Democrats just seem to build broken things to fix broken things, instead of actually going through the existing system and fixing it. For example, poor public school in minority areas are producing poor students. Solution: Affirmative action. Instead of fixing the damn problems in the schools, which, BTW, have only gotten worse.
Or excessive violence in certain areas. Solution: Ban guns. Instead of trying to fix the completely broken communities. A more completely backassward solution I have never heard of. It's like trying to stop a river flooding by banning bottled water.
Of course, it's all rather moot now. Talking about the two party's approach to the government at this point is like talking who has the nicer tie, the man on the left or the man on the right, and ignoring that the man on the right has started juggling live grenades and chainsaws over your head.
The man on the left may be confused at times, but I'll take 'confused' over 'lying warmongering insane meglomanics' any day.
Logically, if it was cheaper to produce paper from paper instead of trees, they should be paying me for the fucking paper. Otherwise, recycling paper is just masturbation...the stuff grows on trees.
The same with glass. Um, hello? We cannot under any circumstances run out of glass. It's made out of sand!
Now, I will admit, in theory, that recycling those two items could save energy but somehow paradoxically cost more, but that really doesn't make any sense at all. I can't think of any costs for recycling materials that don't involve non-renewable energy. (Whereas, say, paper from trees requires purchasing trees which grew from sunlight, or at least owning land.)
I used to think metal recycling made sense, because while the above was true, we could actually run out of it, but then I realized we'd just start mining landfills if we ever did, so don't worry about it.
About the only think it makes sense to recycle is plastics, and ironically that's the thing least likely to be recycled in communities.
Now, what about the 'we're running out of landfills'? Well, good. I will continue to fill up landfills near me with paper and sand and you can save your landfills for toxic batteries and whatnot. ;)
Except the voters would kill him. It's all nice to hear sob stories about how someone can't do something with their land because of the guberment randomly deciding they can't, but in the real world, just wait till they start talking about how there are only 30 Wild Pine Goats, 8 of whom live in the area under discussion, etc, etc, and the tide of public opinion would rapidly side with the almsot extinct animals.
Looking back in history, I can't think of any president that wanted to do something that the American people had decided not to do, so he asked specialists in the field to lie for him so he'd have justification to do it.
*thinks a second*
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (I actually know the real expression, and even what it means!)
I thought the debt is a bad thing, and I was always for a balanced budget. I thought we should lower Federal taxes once we got the debt until control, mainly so we could raise local taxes.
And I thought the government should stop screwing around with state issues, like the speed limit.
I wasn't entirely sure about social issues...I thought maybe Clinton was right and we needed national health care. And I always thought abortion was a stupid issue, like prostitution...all you can do is drive it underground. Even though Roe vs. Wade was the stupidest decision ever. I didn't think we needed affirmative action, but figured the whole thing was overblown.
If you'd asked me who I would have voted for if I'd been a month older for the Clinton/Dole election, I honestly don't know who I would have picked. Probably Clinton, simply because the attacks on him seemed completely irrelevant to his job performance.
The relationship between the hypothetical Republican party I was told about as a high school senior and the actual Republican party at this point is left as exercise for the reader.
Preferably one with degrees in astronomy and transfinite math.
At least, the bad genocides, where people we don't dislike are getting killed by people we do dislike.
I mean, even the Republicans would probably issue at statement condemning them or something.
As long as it wasn't someone we were actively trading with. Or might want to in the future.
The agenda of people critizing Bush is roughly 'Someone please stop this madman. Why the hell are you voting for him, what is wrong with you people? No, seriously. Why are you defending him? Is everybody here very stoned?'.
It's not much of an agenda, and it's not like it's a secret or anything. At this point, a lot of people who used to have that agenda have actually forgotten to do anything besides stand and stare in pure amazement.
I'll be the first to admit, there are people claiming to have that agenda, who actually have other ones. But not most people.
Now, the people defending Bush...most of them have no agenda at all. They have been told they should try to accomplish X by doing Y, but Y cannot possibly lead to X. And accomplishing X is usually a pretty dodgy idea in the first place. You can replace X with 'lower taxes' or 'get rid of homos' or 'fight the liberal media', and the Y is almost always 'protect the Republican president'.
It's only true for, what, 9 to 15 years?
What the hell it has to do with anything, I do not know. That sort of random political statistic usually means someone is talking gibberish.
As an event horizon is a boundary, by defination, that's not too suprising. Boundaries on simple 3 dimensional objects must be curved 2d objects, because they're just marking the outside from the inside.
With black holes, unlike stars and planets, there is no inside object, there is no difference between the outside area and the inside area, except anything in the inside area can't cross the boundary to the outside. Not due to the boundary, but due to the gravity gradient at that point, which we have marked with an imaginary 'event horizon'.
And, of course, technically, a black hole is just a point, it has no dimensions. However, saying it's not a star is premature. We don't know what's going on in that point, so saying there's no fusion there is a bit silly. (Smashing everything into a single point would appear to be the defination of 'fusion'.) We could easily define it as 'dense enough to cause hydroden fusion', which a black hole would be, pretending it hadn't compressed its matter entirely out of the known universe.
Not that I'm entirely sure we want black holes to be defined as stars. What if we run across microscopic black holes, containing 50 tons of matter and lasting for mere seconds? Calling 50 tons of matter a star is a bit silly...that's not even a planetoid. It just so happens that all the black holes we know about come from stars, but everything comes from stars!
In fact, I don't think 'black hole' is properly a 'astronomical object type'. It's just an 'object type', like a table or a lump of iron. We just happen to locate them in space. What we call them there could depend on how they function, like we do with 'lumps of iron', which can be planets, meteorites, moons, artifical satellites, whatever.
And, at that point, everyone was operating in the 'ask people to close their open relays first, and then block them if they refuse', so they were knowingly operating an open relay and refusing to close it. At the time that 95% of all spam was sent through open relays. (Nowdays, you just get blocked, period. No one has time to track down idiots anymore, no one emails you first.)
And, my God, he got sendmail to not relay by default. That bastard! No, wait, that makes me respect Vixie more than I already did.
There's absolutely nothing there to support the claim these people were blacklisted by the (now defunct, thanks to lawsuits) MAPS because they were a competitor.
And, by their suggesting the nuisance lawsuits that caused MAPS, a valuable resource, to close down, I think it's rather obvious who was attacking a competitor. And it wasn't MAPS.
Really? So...shaved your sideburns recently? I bet you have, sinner.
Everyone picks and chooses. Some people have just let other people pick and choose for them.
If someone honestly didn't pick and choose, fine. I can't imagine such a person existing in society, but whatever.
But if you do pick and choose, or let someone else do it for you, you are responsible for your beliefs.
Of course, it was removed because the Roman Christians were whining, not because of any religious reason. They didn't see why they had to follow Jewish dietary law.
If there had been a devout homosexual community instead, you know what? Same thing would have happened for them.
But someone once asked Jesus what the most important laws were. He gave the actual important commandments...throw the ten commandments away, these are the two commandments.
He said the first was: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.
And the second: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Then he continued: All the law and the writings of the prophets depend on these two commands.
Anyone who tried to read any law from the Bible that doesn't originate from one of those two commandments is reading something that isn't God's rules. They might be laws to keep Israel intact, or curtail disease, or outdated commands about the treatment of women and slaves, but they aren't the rules from God.
No, I'm not going to debate people who say Christianity is a bunch of nonsense...it's not really that important to me. I'm just saying, Jesus actually came out and said, 'If you get nothing else from me, then at least love God unconditionally and love everyone else as much as you love yourself. The rest of it should logically follow from that start.'.
Maybe I meant we'd have both fewer car accidents, and the ones we had would be lesser, eh? Did you ever think of that, huh?
No, but I never purchase anything with a debit card if I can help it, and never with a credit card.
And the same sort of logic, aka, 'I can't get caught driving while drunk', results in hit-and-runs. I'm not saying that you'd do that, but that's where it comes from.
Also the cashiers find that very annoying, because you can't scan those cards, at least not around here.
If so, why don't you let it run until your gas is free, and then take a day off, go down to the gas station, and give everyone free gas for the entire day? And rent a trailer, purchase a dozen fifty gallon barrels, and start with them?
Um, duh.
I purchase stuff, mainly gas, from Kroger, with a card that says 'Jerome K. Jerome'.
Copying into RAM is an infringement unless 117 applies, and 117 only applies to the owner of a copy. If you are the owner of the copy, you don't need permission. (BTW, there's a law being considered to fix this, changing 'owner' to 'lawful possessor'.)
Now...
As for ProCD, the logic there is absurd. And opens up absurd loopholes...all I have to do is claim that I myself did not purchase the software, but was given it as a gift, sans packaging. Or maybe the packaging was damaged right there. Or maybe I can't read. (Which is not only crazy, but somehow means that someone who didn't actually own their copy legally sold it to me, which is inane.)
And the court was seriously confused about who was making the offer. Their logic only works if the software company was making the offer, and someone walked up and said 'sure', like tickets with rules on the back. But a package on a shelf is not an offer, and it's certainly not an offer from the software company.
Walking up and handing it to the cashier is the offer, and the customer does that to the merchant, not the software manufacturer. Just because the product packaging claims to contain additional restrictive terms on behalf of the manufacturer (Which is legal), doesn't mean that when I make an offer to a third party that I expect them to apply. If I purchase a stereo in the orginal box at a yard sell with a two year warranty, I'm not expecting to get the warranty.
It's even more absurd when you consider that, while most additional terms do contain restrictions on what the service was labeled as, they don't restrict you from doing something that you legally could do otherwise. If I purchase an 'open ended' plane ticket with blackout dates on the back, well, I didn't have any right at all to be on their plane anyway. It's a restriction on what they have to do in return for your cash, not a restriction on something you could do anyway. Whereas I did have a legal right to copy any software I am legally owner of, which (Pretending EULAs are valid here), I would have been had they not stuck the terms there.
I.e., most 'small print' slightly changes things, and it's understandable to allow customers to agree without seeing. (Although absurd to not let them see, like with most software. Some software companies just lost a suit over that, IIRC.) It's not understandable to change the entire terms of a sale, especially when that sale was with a third party!