"grabbing very little that isn't spam"? Isn't very little in itself unacceptable? Hotmail blocked "very little" of my valid mail once, and it happened to be an invitation to a second round job interview. If you have to look through the trash anyway to make sure nothing was incorrectly blocked, how is it different from not having spam filters at all?
"Given the physics behind this theorized stunt, boring a hole clear through to China would be impossible. It would require some extra application of force to tunnel "upwards" after reaching the Earth's core. "
Why not just make another hole starting in China, so that the two meet in the center? I'm not in any way saying this whole idea isn't completely ridiculous, but I just don't see your point as being the bottleneck.
Legal reasons are always superceded by practical ones. What is the latest thinking on which is more secure, Open Source or "security through obscurity"? The first thought I have when I think "government using Open Source software" is "nukes controlled by code I wrote". This doesn't make me feel good.
as the one you registered with your domain, just set up your filters to deny any direct mailings with "if To doesn't contain @yourdomain.com, deliver to junk"
They wouldn't actually be hiring them, but purchasing a product (list of emails) from them.
If I buy brand name sneakers for instance, I am not legally responsible for the labor practices of the manufacturer.
"The day after a critical fund-raising trip to woo major telecommunications firms in Chicago, court records show Linda Priest called one of Zekko's founding fathers.
It was all a hoax, she said. There was no invention. There was only The Revelation." ------ I guess this is just one great plan foiled by women;P I wonder why she did it though.
I asked one of my professors why he doesn't put the Powerpoint slides he uses in lecture on the course web site along with the rest of the crap. He replied that students would get the false notion that they don't need to come to class, but the bigger issue is that legally, once he did this he would lose all rights to his lecture material, and they would become property of the university - the info does not even have to be put on the university's servers. Can someone in the field of law comment on this please?
P.S. The guy's name is Randall H. McGuire, he teaches anthropology at Binghamton University. By popular opinion he is a pretty nasty guy, if anyone has any idea of how to deal with him, please do share.
"Instead of crippling my car, wouldn't it be easier for them to research ways of detecting people who are driving erratically or recklessly?"
No, everyone has a certain responce time. The faster you drive, the less maneuvering you can do during that time. If you think you have an incredible reaction time, I guess they can fire up some test and increase the limit for you.
"So you'd rather go through extra hassle with the courts?? Wow you must have nothing to do..."
I'd rather go to court if/when I have a real medical emergency if that means keeping YOU from speeding, therefore endangering the lives of others who pretty much didn't sign up for it.
You don't see that as illogical? The only reason for that is that the person wants to be able to break the law while enjoying the fact that everyone else won't. I mean... its pretty self explanatory isn't it?
That would be a great idea actually, this way, if someone is in an emergency, they can speed, pay a fine, and then maybe even be able to go to court, submit the hospital report and get it back.
I know we all hate the thought of anything controlling any aspect of our lives, but consider this: laws are made with the premise that the majority decides that the pros of the laws outweigh the cons, and by living in a country, agree to put the law above them. This is the most efficient way we know of to run a society.
Now, the only real reason that this idea is going to be lambasted on/. is that YOU personally want to be able to speed when you decide to do it. If you ask me, I'd rather you didn't.
You say this as if racism is a planned thing by the company. It isn't, it is all in the minds of the people just like you and me. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think racism is all that stupid though. People have to make generalizations somehow, they have to base them on some criterion. When a caveman saw a tiger in the forest, it did not wonder if this was one of the good tigers, or the bad ones, he just ran or tried to kill it, so that he wouldn't get eaten.
Affirmative action based on race for example affirms the validity on generalizing about a person's circumstances and abilities by looking only at the person's race.
Affirmative action is still practiced, and is supported by most blacks. At the same time, they complain about racial profiling in police matters, as well as the work place, when this only uses the same principle.
Censorship of this sort does make sense at times. Speech can be used as a weapon, it can hurt, or even harm (yes, there is a difference)people. Speech is usually censored only where there is a "clear and present danger" created by it. One might say that this is applicable to public radio and television, where people absorb a stream of information.
Napster is totally different though, because instead of listening to a continuous stream of audio, you pick and choose what you want to listen to. If you happened to pick a song to download that offends you, you have nobody to blame (this is very similar to the web itself if you think about it).
There is also plenty of legal precedent against this, with free speech being protected over most other virtues: nazi marches are protected even though they're hurtful to jews and blacks, TV stations have a right to broadcast just about any kind of information they want, despite the clear embarrassment of the people involved.
I believe that in the U.S. the power companies are to some extent regulated by the government because there isn't much competition there, so I don't think they can legally deny service.
Another problem I have with this is why do they want their customers to use less power? I'd think they would want to increase the amount of energy they harvest and instead encourage the industries to buy as much electricity from them as they want... am I missing something? Please do let me know.
The fact that the only thing of value to the FBI from my keystrokes might be my shopping list is irrelevant. The same argument can be used in stating that people should have no problem with government agencies monitoring everything they do for no reason at all.
I'm not trying to say that FBI having the ability to monitor people's keystrokes is a bad thing though. It is only a minor expansion to its already existing powers, most of which are in my opinion, necessary.
It is however, dangerous to use this type of thinking when deciding on an issue like letting someone take away people's rights.
Slashdot Mirror
"grabbing very little that isn't spam"? Isn't very little in itself unacceptable? Hotmail blocked "very little" of my valid mail once, and it happened to be an invitation to a second round job interview. If you have to look through the trash anyway to make sure nothing was incorrectly blocked, how is it different from not having spam filters at all?
"Given the physics behind this theorized stunt, boring a hole clear through to China would be impossible. It would require some extra application of force to tunnel "upwards" after reaching the Earth's core. "
Why not just make another hole starting in China, so that the two meet in the center? I'm not in any way saying this whole idea isn't completely ridiculous, but I just don't see your point as being the bottleneck.
That's what makes the show intelligent>
Intelligent?!
Legal reasons are always superceded by practical ones. What is the latest thinking on which is more secure, Open Source or "security through obscurity"? The first thought I have when I think "government using Open Source software" is "nukes controlled by code I wrote". This doesn't make me feel good.
as the one you registered with your domain, just set up your filters to deny any direct mailings with "if To doesn't contain @yourdomain.com, deliver to junk"
you "*"d out "butt"?
They wouldn't actually be hiring them, but purchasing a product (list of emails) from them.
If I buy brand name sneakers for instance, I am not legally responsible for the labor practices of the manufacturer.
that seems like you're describing why not to use it
"The day after a critical fund-raising trip to woo major telecommunications firms in Chicago, court records show Linda Priest called one of Zekko's founding fathers.
;P I wonder why she did it though.
It was all a hoax, she said. There was no invention. There was only The Revelation."
------
I guess this is just one great plan foiled by women
I don't know about Tribes2, but Alpha Centauri has been out for a WHILE. It was fun, but not as fun as Civ2 used to be either IMO.
I asked one of my professors why he doesn't put the Powerpoint slides he uses in lecture on the course web site along with the rest of the crap. He replied that students would get the false notion that they don't need to come to class, but the bigger issue is that legally, once he did this he would lose all rights to his lecture material, and they would become property of the university - the info does not even have to be put on the university's servers. Can someone in the field of law comment on this please? P.S. The guy's name is Randall H. McGuire, he teaches anthropology at Binghamton University. By popular opinion he is a pretty nasty guy, if anyone has any idea of how to deal with him, please do share.
I bet there'd me less mistakes on the way up though. Intel wouldn't have made the 20 bit bus, used little endian, so on, so forth.
Doesn't it rub off through everyday use of joints?
"Instead of crippling my car, wouldn't it be easier for them to research ways of detecting people who are driving erratically or recklessly?" No, everyone has a certain responce time. The faster you drive, the less maneuvering you can do during that time. If you think you have an incredible reaction time, I guess they can fire up some test and increase the limit for you.
"So you'd rather go through extra hassle with the courts?? Wow you must have nothing to do..." I'd rather go to court if/when I have a real medical emergency if that means keeping YOU from speeding, therefore endangering the lives of others who pretty much didn't sign up for it.
You don't see that as illogical? The only reason for that is that the person wants to be able to break the law while enjoying the fact that everyone else won't. I mean... its pretty self explanatory isn't it?
That would be a great idea actually, this way, if someone is in an emergency, they can speed, pay a fine, and then maybe even be able to go to court, submit the hospital report and get it back.
I am.
Now, the only real reason that this idea is going to be lambasted on /. is that YOU personally want to be able to speed when you decide to do it. If you ask me, I'd rather you didn't.
Affirmative action based on race for example affirms the validity on generalizing about a person's circumstances and abilities by looking only at the person's race.
Affirmative action is still practiced, and is supported by most blacks. At the same time, they complain about racial profiling in police matters, as well as the work place, when this only uses the same principle.
+5? FUNNY? are you all on fucking crack? I bet this post will be moderated down despite the fact i'm including the following: "finger"
Napster is totally different though, because instead of listening to a continuous stream of audio, you pick and choose what you want to listen to. If you happened to pick a song to download that offends you, you have nobody to blame (this is very similar to the web itself if you think about it).
There is also plenty of legal precedent against this, with free speech being protected over most other virtues: nazi marches are protected even though they're hurtful to jews and blacks, TV stations have a right to broadcast just about any kind of information they want, despite the clear embarrassment of the people involved.
Another problem I have with this is why do they want their customers to use less power? I'd think they would want to increase the amount of energy they harvest and instead encourage the industries to buy as much electricity from them as they want... am I missing something? Please do let me know.
I'm not trying to say that FBI having the ability to monitor people's keystrokes is a bad thing though. It is only a minor expansion to its already existing powers, most of which are in my opinion, necessary.
It is however, dangerous to use this type of thinking when deciding on an issue like letting someone take away people's rights.
so you're proposing voting by mail? how is this different from an absentee system we have now?