I take it that you never use Windows logon batch scripts. I mean, if you are skilled enough to implement "net use E: \\server\share" in C++ in a few hundred lines of code, why the hell wouldnt you? It will run a few microseconds faster!
You are aware of the Iranian attacks on embassies in Iran, right?
You do realize that the Ahmadinejad is basically implying that 9/11 isnt all that it seems (where the heck are you finding these condolences)? And that he has declared that, quote, "Israel must be wiped off of the map"?
What part of the way Iran has been behaving and talking makes you think they will be "running to the table"?
No, that equation I gave includes the requirement that there be 4 dots. To allow for more dots, you would do 9 + 9*8 + 9*8*7 + 9*8*7*6. In other words, you would add the permutations for each length of dots.
And at least on my motorola admiral, you can indeed go from any one dot to any other dot, skipping ones in the middle.
. If the bartender encourages you to drink more, knowing that you're gonna be driving home, then calls the cops, while acting as an agent for those cops, then that could be entrapment.
Maybe I missed the part where the ISP encourages piracy.
You'd also have to change the constitution, if you were talking about the US. There's virtually no chance youre getting that ban at the state or federal level until that happens, and it never will (my prediction).
Apparently youre not so advanced that youre beyond petty jabs at groups you dont like, though. Is it really necessary to essentially call everyone in the US retards, and then top it off by declaring southern baptists to be even bigger retards?
Is it possible that there are people on both sides of every debate that dont know how to debate properly, and that you're not the only one tearing their hair out at the ridiculous moderators and the ridiculous positions people take?
We justify gun ownership on the basis that the right to own guns is built into our founding document on very good premises. None of those premises involved "as a deterrent to burglaries", but rather "as a deterrent to any force that would try to become a tyrant".
You can suggest that we pass an amendment getting rid of that provision, but I think you would find precious little support for it-- and for good reason. The only government that would make such a suggestion is the last one we should hand our guns over to.
Before you resort to ad hominems (or just being unpleasant, whatever you want to call it),
Stop criminalising things that people want to pay for.
Those are YOUR words, and what I based my response on. You are suggesting that if people want to pay for something, we should decriminalize it.
The examples I gave are all things people want to pay for, and they are all things that I think most people-- yourself included, if you would rein in your retort for a second to think about it-- would agree SHOULD be criminalized.
Criminals are those who go against society's rules. Acting on the assumption that free will is an illusion will lead you to create a society that cannot work-- for our world to function you MUST assign responsibility for the actions that people take.
And if free will is an illusion, then there is no point having a conversation: all of our responses are predetermined, as is your retort and mine. You probably are trying to assert that strong pressures may push people in one direction or another, and that is true; but it does not remove personal responsibility for the decision ultimately made.
As I posted elsewhere in this thread, Amsterdam has legalized prostitution and certain drugs, and they still have large problems with both.
In fact, apparently Amsterdam is one of the top destinations of trafficked humans. Legitimizing it doesnt magically solve the problem.
You know, people will also pay to watch dogfighting, buy sex slaves, buy servant slaves, buy nuclear warheads, and watch snuff films. You want to legalize all of that? Perhaps we should decriminalize it?
I can guarantee that if your policy for getting rid of crime is to legalize every criminal act, then you will end up with a crimeless wreck of a country that would be an absolute nightmare to live in.
Some people even commit crimes to go back into the institution because the system didn't provide them with any skills to re-integrate into society.
The problem is that you fundamentally do not seem to accept that those people have free will and the ability to make their own choices. That they chose badly is their responsibility.
Certainly society can help them, but at the end of the day the failure is theirs, not the government's.
Unless like one of the earlier posters there is something specific to his configuration that is the problem, which seems increasingly likely (an extension? Flashblock, noscript?)
The website generally doesnt change from visitor to visitor; its usually the visitor configurations that are different, and thus if one out of a hundred people cant get in it is very likely some wonky configuration they have done.
There is basically no chance that someone will die in the middle of London while carrying enough money to buy gas simply because they could not buy gas.
It wouldnt be 6!, but 9*8^(n-1), where n is the number of elements. First dot has 9 possibilities, the remaining dots have 8 (since you cannot use the same dot twice in a row).
If you cant repeat elements, it would be 9Pn, where n is the number of elements (that is, if n=4, 9*8*7*6)
Slashdot Mirror
I take it that you never use Windows logon batch scripts. I mean, if you are skilled enough to implement "net use E: \\server\share" in C++ in a few hundred lines of code, why the hell wouldnt you? It will run a few microseconds faster!
With VPN, encryption is iffy at best and may not be enabled by default depending on the client you use.
If you are setting up a VPN on basically any point-and-click interface, encryption will be enabled by default.
Mitigate means "reduces the severity of". If fewer machines are vulnerable, that mitigates some risk.
You are aware of the Iranian attacks on embassies in Iran, right?
You do realize that the Ahmadinejad is basically implying that 9/11 isnt all that it seems (where the heck are you finding these condolences)? And that he has declared that, quote, "Israel must be wiped off of the map"?
What part of the way Iran has been behaving and talking makes you think they will be "running to the table"?
You have to remember the number whether it is 0 or 32, and trying to quantify the work involved in cognition is a little ridiculous.
Somehow everyone I've ever met who deals with fahrenheit manages to remember that magic number 32 without pulling a muscle, it truly is amazing.
No, that equation I gave includes the requirement that there be 4 dots. To allow for more dots, you would do 9 + 9*8 + 9*8*7 + 9*8*7*6. In other words, you would add the permutations for each length of dots.
And at least on my motorola admiral, you can indeed go from any one dot to any other dot, skipping ones in the middle.
You confuse free will for omniscience.
I guess we should toss L. Ron Hubbard in there too.
In all honesty thats probably a close second in terms of things you dont want to say.
. If the bartender encourages you to drink more, knowing that you're gonna be driving home, then calls the cops, while acting as an agent for those cops, then that could be entrapment.
Maybe I missed the part where the ISP encourages piracy.
FWIW, couldnt a gun-ownership opponent point out that technically most of those homicides in the UK were (IIRC) knife related?
You'd also have to change the constitution, if you were talking about the US. There's virtually no chance youre getting that ban at the state or federal level until that happens, and it never will (my prediction).
Apparently youre not so advanced that youre beyond petty jabs at groups you dont like, though. Is it really necessary to essentially call everyone in the US retards, and then top it off by declaring southern baptists to be even bigger retards?
Is it possible that there are people on both sides of every debate that dont know how to debate properly, and that you're not the only one tearing their hair out at the ridiculous moderators and the ridiculous positions people take?
*disclaimer: American Southern Baptist here*
We justify gun ownership on the basis that the right to own guns is built into our founding document on very good premises. None of those premises involved "as a deterrent to burglaries", but rather "as a deterrent to any force that would try to become a tyrant".
You can suggest that we pass an amendment getting rid of that provision, but I think you would find precious little support for it-- and for good reason. The only government that would make such a suggestion is the last one we should hand our guns over to.
Before you resort to ad hominems (or just being unpleasant, whatever you want to call it),
Stop criminalising things that people want to pay for.
Those are YOUR words, and what I based my response on. You are suggesting that if people want to pay for something, we should decriminalize it.
The examples I gave are all things people want to pay for, and they are all things that I think most people-- yourself included, if you would rein in your retort for a second to think about it-- would agree SHOULD be criminalized.
Arent you an authority figure to him, if you're his employer?
Criminals are those who go against society's rules. Acting on the assumption that free will is an illusion will lead you to create a society that cannot work-- for our world to function you MUST assign responsibility for the actions that people take.
And if free will is an illusion, then there is no point having a conversation: all of our responses are predetermined, as is your retort and mine. You probably are trying to assert that strong pressures may push people in one direction or another, and that is true; but it does not remove personal responsibility for the decision ultimately made.
As I posted elsewhere in this thread, Amsterdam has legalized prostitution and certain drugs, and they still have large problems with both.
In fact, apparently Amsterdam is one of the top destinations of trafficked humans. Legitimizing it doesnt magically solve the problem.
You know, people will also pay to watch dogfighting, buy sex slaves, buy servant slaves, buy nuclear warheads, and watch snuff films. You want to legalize all of that? Perhaps we should decriminalize it?
I can guarantee that if your policy for getting rid of crime is to legalize every criminal act, then you will end up with a crimeless wreck of a country that would be an absolute nightmare to live in.
Some people even commit crimes to go back into the institution because the system didn't provide them with any skills to re-integrate into society.
The problem is that you fundamentally do not seem to accept that those people have free will and the ability to make their own choices. That they chose badly is their responsibility.
Certainly society can help them, but at the end of the day the failure is theirs, not the government's.
We can also send EMP messages by setting off nuclear bombs in patterns corresponding to e.g. Morse code. Does that mean that we should?
Depends, it would be the most efficient way of sending certain kinds of messages....
Unless like one of the earlier posters there is something specific to his configuration that is the problem, which seems increasingly likely (an extension? Flashblock, noscript?)
The website generally doesnt change from visitor to visitor; its usually the visitor configurations that are different, and thus if one out of a hundred people cant get in it is very likely some wonky configuration they have done.
Worst case, they could die.
There is basically no chance that someone will die in the middle of London while carrying enough money to buy gas simply because they could not buy gas.
9!+8! is much more than 400k.
9! in particular is almost 400k on my own (I know this because for some odd reason I know 10! by heart).
The number of combinations at MOST would be 9!, but more like 9! - n! where n=9-number_of_elements
To be fair, .tgz is super obscure. I mean, not even WinZip is able to handle tgz.
Tell him he's been allowed by the state to make phone calls using it. Wait for him to unlock it it, and then take the device from him.
Might'nt that fall afoul of 5th amendment protections?
It wouldnt be 6!, but 9*8^(n-1), where n is the number of elements. First dot has 9 possibilities, the remaining dots have 8 (since you cannot use the same dot twice in a row).
If you cant repeat elements, it would be 9Pn, where n is the number of elements (that is, if n=4, 9*8*7*6)