A little confused if you are saying I am a "pirate" or not a "pirate".
None of what you said makes any difference whatsoever. There is no illegal anything. First off, illegal always gives the impression of a criminal justice system when copyright infringement on a consumer level (one-by-one) is purely a civil matter. Attempts to the contrary go against the purpose and spirit of intellectual property infrastructure and philosophies we started with. Additionally, sustainable ones at that.
If I walk into your house, sit down at your dinner table, and hand you a cupcake, a few things happened.
1) I entered your space without your permission. 2) I entered your space in many cases without your knowledge. 3) I explicitly, by action, intended for you to consume the cupcake. 4) You never had a choice in the first place. Consume the cupcake, don't consume the cupcake, does not matter. That, logically, makes the cupcake free. 5) Since the cupcake is free, I am in possession of the cupcake, I have the legal entitlements granted to me, by the cupcake baker, to consume said cupcake.
It is fucking stupid to tell me I cannot take the sprinkles off the fucking cupcake (commercials). I never had a choice to begin with, but throw away the cupcake, or eat it. Last thing you can tell me his how to eat it.
If I don't want your cupcake, but walk across the street to take the neighbors cupcake (also provided by you for free) and eat it instead, the same final conclusion was reached either way.
Intellectual property works the same way. I am granted by the copyright holders, or the sub-licensees, the right to view their intellectual property. Despite the bullshit and flawed arguments, it is unethical and the height of sociopathic behavior, to dictate how one enjoys intellectual property. Note, I said enjoyment. I don't mean attempting to sell it or anything else. Just to "consume" the intellectual property in accordance with my rights.
HBO, I never included in the conversation. They are no different than movies. When I download TrueBlood, I agree that I am performing copyright infringement.
In the case of broadcast TV, there is no such thing as copyright infringement. You absolutely have the right to enjoy broadcast TV in any way you choose, and that includes finding a replacement for your copy, when the copy is essentially the same. Most importantly, in spirit.
That's my point. Amazon is not any better than Netflix, does not offer DVDs by mail, and has Blockbuster like pricing and services for everything else.
Netflix has Amazon covered in the selection department last time I checked.
I was being sarcastic, which I was I said it was from the executives.
Netflix and I both paid for the bandwidth between us. The fact that the business models of the ISPs between us don't allow them to profit anymore once there are too many relationships between Netflix and other people in my neighborhood is neither Netflix or anyone in my neighborhood's fault.
Overselling bandwidth should be illegal, consequences be damned. It's like our (Americans) penchant for incurring credit card debt. Live within your means, and stop incrementally increasing your debt. Eventually the bubble bursts, the debt comes due, and the shit hits the fan.
For the ISPs.... the shit is hitting the fan. They don't like it. Poor babies. My heart bleeds.
I dare them to come and try taking my Freedom for it.
Keep in mind, I am *not* talking about a show on HBO, or a movie. Broadcast TV. There is a reason why a lot of the piracy groups get their releases now DIRECT from digital TV broadcast captures.
To put it another way.... if I went to the grocery store and bought all the ingredients to perfectly mimic a McDonald's BigMac at home... am I infringing upon McDonald's? Did I "steal" from them?
If you give away something for free, you cannot complain when people receive it for free, but not directly from you. It's illogical, unethical, and stupid.
So I actually welcome litigation over it. Go ahead. I want to have these arguments heard in court. The facts are the facts. It *is* being sent inside my home, which I can do nothing about legally, in a fashion that it exactly meant for my consumption. That was their intention, which matters, under the law.
Remember, I am talking about something very specific here.
All the cable company and sat company offerings are super expensive. In so many cases you are literally paying over a $100 per month for a package and plan that allows you the privilege of spending even more ridiculous amounts renting movies for 24-48 hours.
The aforementioned bullshit takes the crown, but then there are their competitors which provide you with the illusion of ownership with DRM'd systems. Blockbuster is a competitor physically and now with streaming as well. However, their pricing plans are hysterical. Same offer to "own" a DVD for $15-$30. Streaming "Rentals" are in many cases more costly than it ever was to rent them physically.
Amazon is basically Block Buster's Bullshit Online(tm). Renting a TV Show for $2? Really? Same thing with the movie rentals. Unlimited Amazon Prime has nothing really good for selection. Netflix beats them hands down in that department. If you want commercial free current TV show episodes, sure you're fine. I kind of find it hard to be a competitor though if you are spending over $100 per month on show rentals because you are really into several weekly show. Prime is just being pronounced with the "bs" silent.
Redbox is convenient, but it is like the radio. Only the best (paid) get played and you have limited options. They also make their money on you forgetting to return it, which is why they are priced well at a $1. Seriously, if you are lazy, overworked and tired you would probably think, "Fuck it. It's a $1. I spend more at Del Taco everyday". They are coming out with streaming, but Netflix is pretty fast. Not to mention queued. It's hard to call Redbox a real competitor right now. Closest too it, certainly.
The rest are a bunch of websites like Hulu who deliver advertising laden worthless crap that often force you to install so much DRM infrastructure in your computer, calling it "your" computer is like a farcical play where you are the king of the idiots, but don't know it.
Nevertheless, Netlfix is going to die. Precisely, because it has no competitors at this point.
All the market share that Netflix has destroyed, and revenue grabbed, in the cable and sat networks, which affected the content producers as well, and the advertisers which are none to happy right now, did not earn Netflix any friends. When you can't tell a cable TV network from a content provider you are really fucked on Netflix's flip side which is eating the fuck out the bandwidth everywhere for free, and those are pretty much the exact words from the executives. Seriously, ISPs just love it when they are overselling by 50-100x and you cause them to actually have to start delivering on promises. It's like a run on the banks and they don't have the cash on hand. They have been messing with ISP and backbone provider profits for quite some time.
Big Content is not happy. They could not forsee Netflix becoming what it is, and they were in their experimental phase with licensing for streaming. They have realized they have to do so period. Much like movie companies realized they have to distribute R5 releases to Russia almost right after the movie hits theaters to compete with the pirates. So they became more cooperative figuring they were going to at least make some money, rather than no money. Plus, who knows how this will work out.
Nobody on the content side wants Netflix to continue on the streaming. DVD is a different story entirely, as most people can only rent a certain amount of DVDs each month which allows for a regular profit. Unlimited streaming is the opposite, as Netflix will never pay what they can get from Blockbuster, Amazon, or Hulu. Cable and Sat markets are the super premium bonuses.
Price goes up? Who gives a shit. Not by much. Still the best bang for your buck short of out and out piracy. Nobody talks about their TV and Movie selection right now. Pretty extensive and unlimited.
From the summary, the whole ROI strategy is based on the bullshit scam they have going on in the stock markets and day trading. The only people who really make it are the ones closet to the exchange. Hence all the articles on Slashdot about "stock exchange on a chip" and microsecond trading.
I have no doubt that it will make them more money. It's disgusting and a clear indication of a broken system that it does, but nevertheless, it will make them more money.
You think they are going to let your packets across it? The same reason you will get shut out is why colocation at some places in Wall Street for your servers costs 50-100x the going average.
So basically the invention is the justification for Monster Cables charging what they do? While concurrently, not providing the absurdly scifi star trek science backed explanations of why they rock, but actual reasons?
I would have never thought it possible in my life time....
That would be incredibly ironic considering that Spamhaus sells a PBL list too. So if you are running a mail server on a dynamic IP address in the PBL, you are essentially subsidizing the blocking of your own mail server.
Unfortunately, if you are really serious about blocking SPAM, you block personal mail servers, or at least ones that are running on dynamic IP addresses under a residential contact. The best reason being that most botnets are comprised of personal computer systems on residential connections.
At this point, I don't think it is impossible that Amazon EC2 starts being banned too. There has been serious discussion about it in other technologies, including VOIP, as a lot of attacks have been coming from EC2. I have not had to do so yet, but I can see a time where it might come if Amazon does not start acting more aggressively to stop abuse via their services.
P.S - If there is anybody really upset out there on a residential connection, you can always get a static IP address (shouldn't be on the block list) or pay for a cheap VPS. In the long run your mail server will be more reliable anyways.
You know I was going to rip this guy a new one too, for missing the obvious implications of validating your own email, but all I arrived to was the huge gaping hole.
George Lucas wrote the movie and filmed it in the 70's. Rational explanations? How about how much drugs were done in the 70's? Trust me, there was some rationalization about a lot of things in the movie, but the kind you only understand when you are really really fucked up.
I heard the guy that played Chewbacca was stoned half the time during the film. It's the only way he could pull off those sounds.
Yet not smart enough to secure data in enemy territory and allow a private to gain access to it and walk away from it?
I think we have some pretty impressive "big boom" technologies and their associated delivery systems, but other than that, I would not automatically assume they are doing everything possible to secure it after it has been shot down. It would have to be some pretty redundant and resilient self destruct technology to withstand whatever caused it to go down in the first place. Not to mention, space and weight is at a premium on small craft like that.
Which do you think they would go with first? More sensors, communications, and weapons? Or a self destruct payload?
First look at the rocks. That would be the hardest to alter to shadows on. This is either very early in the morning or right when the sun is setting. So the rocks are probably the most authentic part of the photo and could be used to match up the rest of it.
Look at guy's shirt. The angle of the shadows *does* match the angle of the rocks. Look at the shapes too. What looks like "talons" on his shirt do look like they match up with what is protruding from the front of the wreckage.
What does not look it matches up at all are the shadows on the rocks directly beneath the front of the wreckage. The angle of light source does not seem like it would create that kind of shadow. You can also clearly see rocks beneath the wings that still have lighting on the front of it that is consistent with the overall light source, the Sun.
Based on the length of the shadows on the small rocks in the back, there should not be a shadow beneath the wings at all. Unless you had a strong secondary light source. If one was present though, what is creating the shadow on the left wing at its outermost edge?
At first glance, it looks like it could be real because of how well everything matches above the wreckage, but I don't see how the shadows below the wreckage match the environment and light sources. That secondary shadow below would also cause additional shadows above. Kind of like chandeliers cause multiple shadows from your hands on the wall. Some lighter than others. Based on the angle of the lower shadow, we should be seeing a lighter shadow on the guys hands...... which we don't.
If the shadow below it was completely missing, it would be more plausible. The most telling is where is the long shadow the whole wreckage should be casting behind it somewhere near the back wall?
I think it is shopped too at this point, but I would of have not thought to look at it hard enough unless the poster pointed it out first.
You do realize that not all hydrocarbons are equal, and the with hydrogen (without the hydrides) it is in a compressed state?
If you want to state that a compressed cylinder of hydrogen is as safe as a non-compressed fuel tank filled with regular gasoline, go ahead.
My point is, that you don't need to take the risk at all. For so many reasons, we should be exploring battery technology and using pure electric cars. Less moving parts, it could be lighter, etc.
Not to mention, I am pretty darn sure that a larger more sophisticated facility could extract more energy out of 1 gallon of gasoline than a disparate grouping of cars and trucks all using slightly different technologies with pretty wide divides in mpg.
Why not just create a simple robotic system that exchanges batteries like propane tanks and let the facility worry about recharging them? The facility could work off the grid, nuclear, solar, wind, water, hydrogen, fossil fuels, Omega particles, whatever. I just know it has a much greater chance of being greener than trying to shove different technology all the time straight into the vehicle itself.
It would also allow for charging at home if you spend the money to retrofit your house, or buy a new house, that can provide that energy as well.
I hope that some day the likes of Ms. McCarthy or Mr. Wakefield will own up to their hubris, character assassination, innuendo, etc. and apologize to the world not only for disrupting one of the most successful medical programs of our times, but also for killing, disfiguring, and traumatizing gaggles of children needlessly with their panic-mongering. This is not unlike shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre - especially in the case of Mr. Wakefield where key aspects of his 'research' were later found to be faked, massive conflicts of interest were not disclosed, and interpretations were drawn without the benefit of facts.
You're being way to hard here, and also way to easy on people who really deserve blame.
It's awfully hard to do research when, above all, you are emotionally involved in the answer and:
1) Schools are not really teaching the skills to do research in the first place 2) Everything is on the Internet today. Hardly anybody even thinks of a library 3) The real information, or the information that has a chance of not being bullshit, but actual science, is often behind paywalls. Even then, you have to be smart enough to read it. 4) To even find it... you have to go through Google first 5) Who the fuck do we trust at this point? 6) Where the hell did all the real journalism go? Why are they're not more in depth articles with references that talk about this.. and still see #5.
You have an excellent points, and I recently had an argument with a friend who's girlfriend was on the fence over vaccinations.
It came down to trust.
I honestly cannot blame those parents for being scared and disillusioned. "We" say they are selfish, but in actuality they are trying to do the best thing for their kids. They are just getting the wrong information.
The real damage here is within the "system" itself. When you cannot trust the medical community because they have given us reasons not to trust to them, let's not act all shocked when a percentage of people ending up making the wrong decision because they lack the skills to do research and there is nobody out there explaining things really slowly that they will trust.
In short.... blame all the greedy bastards at Big Pharma who have actually been truly selfish and killed people to raise their stock prices and keep product flowing. Blame all the lawyers who show endless advertisements on TV with, "Do you know, or have you been harmed by pill X? You may be entitled to money. Call now".
I can do research. That asshole in the UK had me leaning towards MMR linked to autism. Even without that, it is still mercury being used in the shot. Unless you are telling me there is no alternative to that compound, they should remove it, because that to me is the real hot button on that issue. Mercury is a toxic element period. It is really hard to convince somebody that it will have no ill effects when all information out in the public says otherwise. It's like treating an ailment with poison. In some cases, that actually works. Yes, this is not pure mercury, but a compound. I know.
In the end, again, it comes down to trust and the general level of education and sophistication. Sorry, I just cannot blame all the parents here. They are scared and have a ton of misinformation, bullshit opinions, hard to find truth, greedy corporations, etc. swirling around them.
Let's just be grateful that the percentage is not higher at this point, and that it might go down, not up.
Don't let the medical community off that easily either. Parents are quick to rush in there because they have no choice at that point, but I refuse to let none of the blame fall on the medical community and Big Pharma.
If they were really innocent and pure as the driven snow, then we would have far more trust and less parents not vaccinating their children.
As for the parents, unlike Ms. McCarthy, who base their decision making processes on faith and religion, ther
Problem is that you cannot safely transport hydrogen in a car. Sure... if you want to be in a bomb go ahead.
That's why there has been so much research into metal hydride storage. Storing compressed hydrogen is insanity, IMO.
I know there has been some very promising developments in point source hydrogen production using Aluminum and Gallium, but then the true costs are recycling the Aluminum back. Basically it would work out quite well, but we would need to build 50 nuclear plants in the US to provide the energy to support a massive infrastructure to recycle those conversion devices.
What I don't understand is that we already have some really good technology for electric cars, but lack battery technology. Why don't we concentrate on the batteries and just have refueling stations provide us the power by whatever means they want to do so? There are ways to burn quite a number of a fuels very efficiently if you are not trying to jam the whole system into a car.
If you could put this on a house, I would use it to generate electricity directly and not pump it into a car ever.
We can have the fueling stations too. All we would need is an economical way to exchange batteries like we do propane tanks when we are out and about.
Just base everything off electricity directly for transportation and stop trying to carry fuel and the systems it needs.
Dr. Evil: The details of my life are quite inconsequential... very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum... it's breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.
That is what will make this.iso mounting probably a failure in the consumer market. Will have it the ability to fake bad sectors? You know..... all the tricks that software companies pull so..... that you cannot... make a working.iso?
I think there is a reason why a lot of people use *specific*.iso mounting programs and.iso ripping programs.
If Microsoft commits to emulating Securom, etc., then maybe I might change my mind a little.
Of course, I am not going to get into an argument if it is right or wrong... just that if the feature is actually valuable given the reality we live in.
P.S - In enterprise and commercial sectors everything is virtualized anyways. So mounting an.iso, or anything, is just a matter of a few clicks or a config file and a common image repository on some iSCSI. A virtualized windows does not need native.iso mounting.
Absolutely. Asterisk by default will want to store voicemail passwords in a database if you choose to do so. Unfortunately, it uses a reserved keyword in Firebird. Having access to the source code I was able to modify the field name and recompile. Problem solved.
In another case I needed more data to come back for a SIP user. I was able to define as many different fields as I wanted and get them returned and usable.
Modification is only one benefit.
Contributions...... that needs to be done by people who *really* know what they are doing. People that can participate and fix bugs and have a deeper understanding of the software.
For most of us, we just simply don't have the time or the ability to do something like that. I just pull out my wallet and donate. In the case of Asterisk, I bought some Digium g729 licenses and the speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I am what ?
A little confused if you are saying I am a "pirate" or not a "pirate".
None of what you said makes any difference whatsoever. There is no illegal anything. First off, illegal always gives the impression of a criminal justice system when copyright infringement on a consumer level (one-by-one) is purely a civil matter. Attempts to the contrary go against the purpose and spirit of intellectual property infrastructure and philosophies we started with. Additionally, sustainable ones at that.
If I walk into your house, sit down at your dinner table, and hand you a cupcake, a few things happened.
1) I entered your space without your permission.
2) I entered your space in many cases without your knowledge.
3) I explicitly, by action, intended for you to consume the cupcake.
4) You never had a choice in the first place. Consume the cupcake, don't consume the cupcake, does not matter. That, logically, makes the cupcake free.
5) Since the cupcake is free, I am in possession of the cupcake, I have the legal entitlements granted to me, by the cupcake baker, to consume said cupcake.
It is fucking stupid to tell me I cannot take the sprinkles off the fucking cupcake (commercials). I never had a choice to begin with, but throw away the cupcake, or eat it. Last thing you can tell me his how to eat it.
If I don't want your cupcake, but walk across the street to take the neighbors cupcake (also provided by you for free) and eat it instead, the same final conclusion was reached either way.
Intellectual property works the same way. I am granted by the copyright holders, or the sub-licensees, the right to view their intellectual property. Despite the bullshit and flawed arguments, it is unethical and the height of sociopathic behavior, to dictate how one enjoys intellectual property. Note, I said enjoyment. I don't mean attempting to sell it or anything else. Just to "consume" the intellectual property in accordance with my rights.
HBO, I never included in the conversation. They are no different than movies. When I download TrueBlood, I agree that I am performing copyright infringement.
In the case of broadcast TV, there is no such thing as copyright infringement. You absolutely have the right to enjoy broadcast TV in any way you choose, and that includes finding a replacement for your copy, when the copy is essentially the same. Most importantly, in spirit.
That's my point. Amazon is not any better than Netflix, does not offer DVDs by mail, and has Blockbuster like pricing and services for everything else.
Netflix has Amazon covered in the selection department last time I checked.
I was being sarcastic, which I was I said it was from the executives.
Netflix and I both paid for the bandwidth between us. The fact that the business models of the ISPs between us don't allow them to profit anymore once there are too many relationships between Netflix and other people in my neighborhood is neither Netflix or anyone in my neighborhood's fault.
Overselling bandwidth should be illegal, consequences be damned. It's like our (Americans) penchant for incurring credit card debt. Live within your means, and stop incrementally increasing your debt. Eventually the bubble bursts, the debt comes due, and the shit hits the fan.
For the ISPs.... the shit is hitting the fan. They don't like it. Poor babies. My heart bleeds.
I dare them to come and try taking my Freedom for it.
Keep in mind, I am *not* talking about a show on HBO, or a movie. Broadcast TV. There is a reason why a lot of the piracy groups get their releases now DIRECT from digital TV broadcast captures.
To put it another way.... if I went to the grocery store and bought all the ingredients to perfectly mimic a McDonald's BigMac at home... am I infringing upon McDonald's? Did I "steal" from them?
If you give away something for free, you cannot complain when people receive it for free, but not directly from you. It's illogical, unethical, and stupid.
So I actually welcome litigation over it. Go ahead. I want to have these arguments heard in court. The facts are the facts. It *is* being sent inside my home, which I can do nothing about legally, in a fashion that it exactly meant for my consumption. That was their intention, which matters, under the law.
Remember, I am talking about something very specific here.
Well now... if you are in the South the answer is that it depends on how much you got.
Netflix does not have competitors.
All the cable company and sat company offerings are super expensive. In so many cases you are literally paying over a $100 per month for a package and plan that allows you the privilege of spending even more ridiculous amounts renting movies for 24-48 hours.
The aforementioned bullshit takes the crown, but then there are their competitors which provide you with the illusion of ownership with DRM'd systems. Blockbuster is a competitor physically and now with streaming as well. However, their pricing plans are hysterical. Same offer to "own" a DVD for $15-$30. Streaming "Rentals" are in many cases more costly than it ever was to rent them physically.
Amazon is basically Block Buster's Bullshit Online(tm). Renting a TV Show for $2? Really? Same thing with the movie rentals. Unlimited Amazon Prime has nothing really good for selection. Netflix beats them hands down in that department. If you want commercial free current TV show episodes, sure you're fine. I kind of find it hard to be a competitor though if you are spending over $100 per month on show rentals because you are really into several weekly show. Prime is just being pronounced with the "bs" silent.
Redbox is convenient, but it is like the radio. Only the best (paid) get played and you have limited options. They also make their money on you forgetting to return it, which is why they are priced well at a $1. Seriously, if you are lazy, overworked and tired you would probably think, "Fuck it. It's a $1. I spend more at Del Taco everyday". They are coming out with streaming, but Netflix is pretty fast. Not to mention queued. It's hard to call Redbox a real competitor right now. Closest too it, certainly.
The rest are a bunch of websites like Hulu who deliver advertising laden worthless crap that often force you to install so much DRM infrastructure in your computer, calling it "your" computer is like a farcical play where you are the king of the idiots, but don't know it.
Nevertheless, Netlfix is going to die. Precisely, because it has no competitors at this point.
All the market share that Netflix has destroyed, and revenue grabbed, in the cable and sat networks, which affected the content producers as well, and the advertisers which are none to happy right now, did not earn Netflix any friends. When you can't tell a cable TV network from a content provider you are really fucked on Netflix's flip side which is eating the fuck out the bandwidth everywhere for free, and those are pretty much the exact words from the executives. Seriously, ISPs just love it when they are overselling by 50-100x and you cause them to actually have to start delivering on promises. It's like a run on the banks and they don't have the cash on hand. They have been messing with ISP and backbone provider profits for quite some time.
Big Content is not happy. They could not forsee Netflix becoming what it is, and they were in their experimental phase with licensing for streaming. They have realized they have to do so period. Much like movie companies realized they have to distribute R5 releases to Russia almost right after the movie hits theaters to compete with the pirates. So they became more cooperative figuring they were going to at least make some money, rather than no money. Plus, who knows how this will work out.
Nobody on the content side wants Netflix to continue on the streaming. DVD is a different story entirely, as most people can only rent a certain amount of DVDs each month which allows for a regular profit. Unlimited streaming is the opposite, as Netflix will never pay what they can get from Blockbuster, Amazon, or Hulu. Cable and Sat markets are the super premium bonuses.
Price goes up? Who gives a shit. Not by much. Still the best bang for your buck short of out and out piracy. Nobody talks about their TV and Movie selection right now. Pretty extensive and unlimited.
When Netflix stops having s
You assume you can get on it.
From the summary, the whole ROI strategy is based on the bullshit scam they have going on in the stock markets and day trading. The only people who really make it are the ones closet to the exchange. Hence all the articles on Slashdot about "stock exchange on a chip" and microsecond trading.
I have no doubt that it will make them more money. It's disgusting and a clear indication of a broken system that it does, but nevertheless, it will make them more money.
You think they are going to let your packets across it? The same reason you will get shut out is why colocation at some places in Wall Street for your servers costs 50-100x the going average.
Cool.
So I can see the 1's and 0's clogging up the cable and where to try and unclog it.
That's added value.
So basically the invention is the justification for Monster Cables charging what they do? While concurrently, not providing the absurdly scifi star trek science backed explanations of why they rock, but actual reasons?
I would have never thought it possible in my life time....
That would be incredibly ironic considering that Spamhaus sells a PBL list too. So if you are running a mail server on a dynamic IP address in the PBL, you are essentially subsidizing the blocking of your own mail server.
Unfortunately, if you are really serious about blocking SPAM, you block personal mail servers, or at least ones that are running on dynamic IP addresses under a residential contact. The best reason being that most botnets are comprised of personal computer systems on residential connections.
At this point, I don't think it is impossible that Amazon EC2 starts being banned too. There has been serious discussion about it in other technologies, including VOIP, as a lot of attacks have been coming from EC2. I have not had to do so yet, but I can see a time where it might come if Amazon does not start acting more aggressively to stop abuse via their services.
P.S - If there is anybody really upset out there on a residential connection, you can always get a static IP address (shouldn't be on the block list) or pay for a cheap VPS. In the long run your mail server will be more reliable anyways.
You know I was going to rip this guy a new one too, for missing the obvious implications of validating your own email, but all I arrived to was the huge gaping hole.
Nicely Done. Nicely Done.
You guys are cracking me up... lol. Seriously....
George Lucas wrote the movie and filmed it in the 70's. Rational explanations? How about how much drugs were done in the 70's? Trust me, there was some rationalization about a lot of things in the movie, but the kind you only understand when you are really really fucked up.
I heard the guy that played Chewbacca was stoned half the time during the film. It's the only way he could pull off those sounds.
We're talking about the photo here.
I appreciate the sound effects, but it already crashed.
as Slashdot has none and because online stuff is traceable
Hah!!
I'm surfing incognito right now with that special agent looking guy icon in the browser. Try and trace me now....
Yet not smart enough to secure data in enemy territory and allow a private to gain access to it and walk away from it?
I think we have some pretty impressive "big boom" technologies and their associated delivery systems, but other than that, I would not automatically assume they are doing everything possible to secure it after it has been shot down. It would have to be some pretty redundant and resilient self destruct technology to withstand whatever caused it to go down in the first place. Not to mention, space and weight is at a premium on small craft like that.
Which do you think they would go with first? More sensors, communications, and weapons? Or a self destruct payload?
It's just an RC airplane painted vaguely like a seagull. I don't see what the big deal is.
Is it a lesbian seagull?
Before anyone calls bullshit on the shop.......
Look at a couple of things in the photo.
First look at the rocks. That would be the hardest to alter to shadows on. This is either very early in the morning or right when the sun is setting. So the rocks are probably the most authentic part of the photo and could be used to match up the rest of it.
Look at guy's shirt. The angle of the shadows *does* match the angle of the rocks. Look at the shapes too. What looks like "talons" on his shirt do look like they match up with what is protruding from the front of the wreckage.
What does not look it matches up at all are the shadows on the rocks directly beneath the front of the wreckage. The angle of light source does not seem like it would create that kind of shadow. You can also clearly see rocks beneath the wings that still have lighting on the front of it that is consistent with the overall light source, the Sun.
Based on the length of the shadows on the small rocks in the back, there should not be a shadow beneath the wings at all. Unless you had a strong secondary light source. If one was present though, what is creating the shadow on the left wing at its outermost edge?
At first glance, it looks like it could be real because of how well everything matches above the wreckage, but I don't see how the shadows below the wreckage match the environment and light sources. That secondary shadow below would also cause additional shadows above. Kind of like chandeliers cause multiple shadows from your hands on the wall. Some lighter than others. Based on the angle of the lower shadow, we should be seeing a lighter shadow on the guys hands...... which we don't.
If the shadow below it was completely missing, it would be more plausible. The most telling is where is the long shadow the whole wreckage should be casting behind it somewhere near the back wall?
I think it is shopped too at this point, but I would of have not thought to look at it hard enough unless the poster pointed it out first.
If the squirrels get a hold of this, there will be no stopping their agents now.
Only a matter of time.
You do realize that not all hydrocarbons are equal, and the with hydrogen (without the hydrides) it is in a compressed state?
If you want to state that a compressed cylinder of hydrogen is as safe as a non-compressed fuel tank filled with regular gasoline, go ahead.
My point is, that you don't need to take the risk at all. For so many reasons, we should be exploring battery technology and using pure electric cars. Less moving parts, it could be lighter, etc.
Not to mention, I am pretty darn sure that a larger more sophisticated facility could extract more energy out of 1 gallon of gasoline than a disparate grouping of cars and trucks all using slightly different technologies with pretty wide divides in mpg.
Why not just create a simple robotic system that exchanges batteries like propane tanks and let the facility worry about recharging them? The facility could work off the grid, nuclear, solar, wind, water, hydrogen, fossil fuels, Omega particles, whatever. I just know it has a much greater chance of being greener than trying to shove different technology all the time straight into the vehicle itself.
It would also allow for charging at home if you spend the money to retrofit your house, or buy a new house, that can provide that energy as well.
I hope that some day the likes of Ms. McCarthy or Mr. Wakefield will own up to their hubris, character assassination, innuendo, etc. and apologize to the world not only for disrupting one of the most successful medical programs of our times, but also for killing, disfiguring, and traumatizing gaggles of children needlessly with their panic-mongering. This is not unlike shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre - especially in the case of Mr. Wakefield where key aspects of his 'research' were later found to be faked, massive conflicts of interest were not disclosed, and interpretations were drawn without the benefit of facts.
You're being way to hard here, and also way to easy on people who really deserve blame.
It's awfully hard to do research when, above all, you are emotionally involved in the answer and:
1) Schools are not really teaching the skills to do research in the first place
2) Everything is on the Internet today. Hardly anybody even thinks of a library
3) The real information, or the information that has a chance of not being bullshit, but actual science, is often behind paywalls. Even then, you have to be smart enough to read it.
4) To even find it... you have to go through Google first
5) Who the fuck do we trust at this point?
6) Where the hell did all the real journalism go? Why are they're not more in depth articles with references that talk about this.. and still see #5.
You have an excellent points, and I recently had an argument with a friend who's girlfriend was on the fence over vaccinations.
It came down to trust.
I honestly cannot blame those parents for being scared and disillusioned. "We" say they are selfish, but in actuality they are trying to do the best thing for their kids. They are just getting the wrong information.
The real damage here is within the "system" itself. When you cannot trust the medical community because they have given us reasons not to trust to them, let's not act all shocked when a percentage of people ending up making the wrong decision because they lack the skills to do research and there is nobody out there explaining things really slowly that they will trust.
In short.... blame all the greedy bastards at Big Pharma who have actually been truly selfish and killed people to raise their stock prices and keep product flowing. Blame all the lawyers who show endless advertisements on TV with, "Do you know, or have you been harmed by pill X? You may be entitled to money. Call now".
I can do research. That asshole in the UK had me leaning towards MMR linked to autism. Even without that, it is still mercury being used in the shot. Unless you are telling me there is no alternative to that compound, they should remove it, because that to me is the real hot button on that issue. Mercury is a toxic element period. It is really hard to convince somebody that it will have no ill effects when all information out in the public says otherwise. It's like treating an ailment with poison. In some cases, that actually works. Yes, this is not pure mercury, but a compound. I know.
In the end, again, it comes down to trust and the general level of education and sophistication. Sorry, I just cannot blame all the parents here. They are scared and have a ton of misinformation, bullshit opinions, hard to find truth, greedy corporations, etc. swirling around them.
Let's just be grateful that the percentage is not higher at this point, and that it might go down, not up.
Don't let the medical community off that easily either. Parents are quick to rush in there because they have no choice at that point, but I refuse to let none of the blame fall on the medical community and Big Pharma.
If they were really innocent and pure as the driven snow, then we would have far more trust and less parents not vaccinating their children.
As for the parents, unlike Ms. McCarthy, who base their decision making processes on faith and religion, ther
Problem is that you cannot safely transport hydrogen in a car. Sure... if you want to be in a bomb go ahead.
That's why there has been so much research into metal hydride storage. Storing compressed hydrogen is insanity, IMO.
I know there has been some very promising developments in point source hydrogen production using Aluminum and Gallium, but then the true costs are recycling the Aluminum back. Basically it would work out quite well, but we would need to build 50 nuclear plants in the US to provide the energy to support a massive infrastructure to recycle those conversion devices.
What I don't understand is that we already have some really good technology for electric cars, but lack battery technology. Why don't we concentrate on the batteries and just have refueling stations provide us the power by whatever means they want to do so? There are ways to burn quite a number of a fuels very efficiently if you are not trying to jam the whole system into a car.
If you could put this on a house, I would use it to generate electricity directly and not pump it into a car ever.
We can have the fueling stations too. All we would need is an economical way to exchange batteries like we do propane tanks when we are out and about.
Just base everything off electricity directly for transportation and stop trying to carry fuel and the systems it needs.
Even evil can be exquisite.
Somehow that reminds me of......
Dr. Evil: The details of my life are quite inconsequential... very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum... it's breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.
I guess it is just your wording.
It's funny that you mention DRM.
That is what will make this .iso mounting probably a failure in the consumer market. Will have it the ability to fake bad sectors? You know..... all the tricks that software companies pull so ..... that you cannot... make a working .iso?
I think there is a reason why a lot of people use *specific* .iso mounting programs and .iso ripping programs.
If Microsoft commits to emulating Securom, etc., then maybe I might change my mind a little.
Of course, I am not going to get into an argument if it is right or wrong... just that if the feature is actually valuable given the reality we live in.
P.S - In enterprise and commercial sectors everything is virtualized anyways. So mounting an .iso, or anything, is just a matter of a few clicks or a config file and a common image repository on some iSCSI. A virtualized windows does not need native .iso mounting.
Absolutely. Asterisk by default will want to store voicemail passwords in a database if you choose to do so. Unfortunately, it uses a reserved keyword in Firebird. Having access to the source code I was able to modify the field name and recompile. Problem solved.
In another case I needed more data to come back for a SIP user. I was able to define as many different fields as I wanted and get them returned and usable.
Modification is only one benefit.
Contributions...... that needs to be done by people who *really* know what they are doing. People that can participate and fix bugs and have a deeper understanding of the software.
For most of us, we just simply don't have the time or the ability to do something like that. I just pull out my wallet and donate. In the case of Asterisk, I bought some Digium g729 licenses and the speech.
LOL
Seven 7's buddy :)
That is what he remembered. Type 7 seven times.