"now if only Microsoft would support it" I think it would be more likely that they would decide IE should actually follow internet standards before they hopped onto this.
Ignoring the tinfoil hats, I think having a slow adjustment from petrol to "alternative fuel" is the only way that switching fuel sources would work. Ignoring how big oil wants us to keep getting oil from them, there would be a period of many years where there are cars running on petrol and alternative sources on the road, and as such, both need to be catered towards. Pulling support to gas would just cripple everyone who couldn't afford a new car at the moment.
maybe that's because in the article they were talking about how they were trying to figure out how to make it practical (and thus cutting down on what you were talking about)
yes, that would be great. Unfortunately, they have 3 weeks until many athletes are competing in the highest level of competition there is. In order to do it so that it will last beyond the Olympics they should have started sooner. That being said, at least they are doing something for the time being. If the US was holding the Olympics in LA, i'm willing to bet we would have just told the other countries to live with it.
The formula they use for piracy is as follows:
They take the number of Software units installed and subtract the number of software unit's purchased/obtained legally, and the resulting value is the number of pirated software units.
Now how did they get those numbers? Well, look at page 11 of the report for that, because if my interpretation of what they are saying is correct, the software units installed = hardware units times the software load (which if that means how much can be put on, will lead to inaccurate numbers) and the numbers legally obtained is Software Market revenue divided by the cost per unit.
Looking through, I just found another thing they counted as Piracy I havn't seen anyone mention yet. In the talk about the benefits of using legal software, they say "It simply works better than the pirated versions, which are often trial or beta copies;" If they are counting trial software, hell, a dell comes with so many programs that 30 days after purchase become "pirated". That's where 1 in 5 come from. Win-zip!
Bush has sat still while method after method of tracking terrorists has been revealed...not for reasons of suggested illegality, been reported on the front page of the New York Times. Yeah, I know- you probably have bought the idea of an administration gone power-hungry, but I'm telling you it's not.
Ok, yes, ways of tracking terrorists have been revealed repeatedly. This has been after either the public had already stumbled upon it (anybody remember the FBI sending undercover agents to a bookclub?) or it has done something illegal. And if you don't think they are power-hungry you are as brain washed as the people you are accusing to be brain washed by the media. When i see a group confiscating the laptops of THE CHILDREN of the person being investigated while that person was obliged to be at work, I see this as political bullying. While you may not see the current administration as have done wrong, they are not in the right either.
A fraction of the Muslim world wants us dead. Period. They've been blowing up a handful of people and a boatload of innocent bystanders (many times, Muslims as well) JUST because they're American or Jewish, for nearly half a century. See the Kobar Towers (sp?), see Beruit, see Bali, and hundreds of other places where the crime was being in a place where radicle Muslims could reach a detonator. Let's also not forget that 9/11 was _before_ we continued the war against Saddam, which was halted in a ceasefire, not victory. Then the ceasefire was breached 492 times by Saddam firing at the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.
Ok...this "fraction" of the Muslim world is the highly conservative Muslims who go by the philosophy of become Muslim or die trying. They are not attacking just because people are American or Jewish, but for the most part, alot of these attacks are in a war for religious holy lands. And yes, this was going on since before 9/11. As a matter of fact, the warring in the area, IIRC have been going on for millenia. It's not new. It's not just the U.S. We've just brought ourself to the forefront recently.
Some people don't get it. Others let the lion's share of the media do the thinking for them. Leaving Iraq won't stop these people. Being nice to them won't stop these people. This thin-slice of the Muslim world hates because they know no other way to vent from their misery, and we get to be the targets.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's a little more complicated then that? hrm? Religion is a funny thing.
But even so, time after time we see the front page of Democratic newspapers extol the 'horror' of diligence, and shut down another means of tracking these people before they do harm. In my America they would have been shot on television, with Muslim captions as they died. This isn't something that we can play around with: they're coming. Hell, they're here- watch the news for all the times the "incompetent" terrorists couldn't get it together. The Democrat news services are all about making their attempts seem foolish.
We are on a slippery slope. The government makes the laws, and they have to follow them also. Is it too much to ask them to follow the same rules everyone else does? And if you want an America where people would have been shot on television to invoke fear, i hear there are several middle eastern countries that you would like. Iraq was one of them before we invaded them.
But when a Democrat is president, and he tries to send the police for the next big strike when an aircraft carrier is called for, will you remember this conversation?
You mean a thing called using minimal force? As a matter of fact I will remember this conversation, and I'll be proud that we didn't send in the aircraft carrier when that policeforce did it's job.
Also notice that, as the election looms, Democrats are starting to 'give' on this key issue: now they're starting to seem 'hawkish' by comparison....they know someone has to do the ac
I remember back when it first came out facebook was nicknamed stalkerbook. As a matter of fact, www.stalkerbook.net still forwards straight to facebook. Now, why did it earn that nickname? Because all of the information was "public" in that anyone who was your friend could see all your information and see whenever it changes. They would know when your classes are, when your going to be at a party, when you'll be studying, with minimal effort. In addition they would know 20 different ways to contact you from AIM to your Cell number, to possibly where you are living at the moment. And remember, this was all on a "one way street" as the author had put it. All the viewing of the information had to be pre-approved in one manner or another. Now, the author is proposing that we essentially get rid of that approval process and have all sites work with one another. It would essentially castrate social networking sites, not for the "exclusiveness" that others have been preaching, but rather because all of the information would be extremely vulnerable.
IMO the better project, which the author did touch upon, would be the opening instant message clients to work with one another. Allowing AIM to contact MSN, or my Jabber account to contact either of them would be great, even if it will never work due to corporate mentality.
except you are forgetting one key thing, for all values of A when the person get's caught, A becomes zero. The punishment to breaking into a bank and stealing 1,000,000$ is not return 999,999. That is not a punishment. It would be, for example, returning the money, paying for anything they broke, and having to help the bank run security for a little while (or be a teller or something like that).
It turns a $1 million dollar theft into helping the company(or bank, or whatever) they just robbed. That actually feels like true justice.
kind of off topic, but they are at very least equal.
Both scar the people for the remainder of their life. Just in one case, the life is longer. I have seen what's happened to people this has happened to. They really are just as bad.
you realize that your talking about the same group of people who think the Sun revolves around the earth, that Rhode Island is part of New York, and New Mexico is in a different country, right?
no...he'll look at the video tape. It was either a 20 second clip, or it was much longer. If it was a 20 second clip, then yes, the statement makes sense. If it was longer, then yea, your analogy makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
...go to a physical bank location and talk to a teller instead of trusting sites you aren't 100% sure are secure.
"now if only Microsoft would support it"
I think it would be more likely that they would decide IE should actually follow internet standards before they hopped onto this.
Ignoring the tinfoil hats, I think having a slow adjustment from petrol to "alternative fuel" is the only way that switching fuel sources would work. Ignoring how big oil wants us to keep getting oil from them, there would be a period of many years where there are cars running on petrol and alternative sources on the road, and as such, both need to be catered towards. Pulling support to gas would just cripple everyone who couldn't afford a new car at the moment.
maybe that's because in the article they were talking about how they were trying to figure out how to make it practical (and thus cutting down on what you were talking about)
you beat me to the coconut joke. Dang.
yes, that would be great. Unfortunately, they have 3 weeks until many athletes are competing in the highest level of competition there is. In order to do it so that it will last beyond the Olympics they should have started sooner. That being said, at least they are doing something for the time being. If the US was holding the Olympics in LA, i'm willing to bet we would have just told the other countries to live with it.
The formula they use for piracy is as follows:
They take the number of Software units installed and subtract the number of software unit's purchased/obtained legally, and the resulting value is the number of pirated software units. Now how did they get those numbers? Well, look at page 11 of the report for that, because if my interpretation of what they are saying is correct, the software units installed = hardware units times the software load (which if that means how much can be put on, will lead to inaccurate numbers) and the numbers legally obtained is Software Market revenue divided by the cost per unit.
Yea...um, that formula really sketches me out.
Looking through, I just found another thing they counted as Piracy I havn't seen anyone mention yet. In the talk about the benefits of using legal software, they say "It simply works better than the pirated versions, which are often trial or beta copies;" If they are counting trial software, hell, a dell comes with so many programs that 30 days after purchase become "pirated". That's where 1 in 5 come from. Win-zip!
i think you were looking for "+|-|4+5 npsbl"
are you serious? Over use of commas can lead to comas!
i forgot i was talking about the internet for a moment. I assumed ads actually sold a product for a moment.
well, they can always not trust the ones that take over their computers. It's usually pretty obvious when your screen turns into an ad.
yes, but who would want their product to become associated with what would quickly become the most annoying ad basis ever invented?
Um...technically arn't doorways and such a lack of space, and therefore uses less materials, and thesefore cheaper then the surrounding areas?
Bush has sat still while method after method of tracking terrorists has been revealed...not for reasons of suggested illegality, been reported on the front page of the New York Times. Yeah, I know- you probably have bought the idea of an administration gone power-hungry, but I'm telling you it's not.
Ok, yes, ways of tracking terrorists have been revealed repeatedly. This has been after either the public had already stumbled upon it (anybody remember the FBI sending undercover agents to a bookclub?) or it has done something illegal. And if you don't think they are power-hungry you are as brain washed as the people you are accusing to be brain washed by the media. When i see a group confiscating the laptops of THE CHILDREN of the person being investigated while that person was obliged to be at work, I see this as political bullying. While you may not see the current administration as have done wrong, they are not in the right either.
A fraction of the Muslim world wants us dead. Period. They've been blowing up a handful of people and a boatload of innocent bystanders (many times, Muslims as well) JUST because they're American or Jewish, for nearly half a century. See the Kobar Towers (sp?), see Beruit, see Bali, and hundreds of other places where the crime was being in a place where radicle Muslims could reach a detonator. Let's also not forget that 9/11 was _before_ we continued the war against Saddam, which was halted in a ceasefire, not victory. Then the ceasefire was breached 492 times by Saddam firing at the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.
Ok...this "fraction" of the Muslim world is the highly conservative Muslims who go by the philosophy of become Muslim or die trying. They are not attacking just because people are American or Jewish, but for the most part, alot of these attacks are in a war for religious holy lands. And yes, this was going on since before 9/11. As a matter of fact, the warring in the area, IIRC have been going on for millenia. It's not new. It's not just the U.S. We've just brought ourself to the forefront recently.
Some people don't get it. Others let the lion's share of the media do the thinking for them. Leaving Iraq won't stop these people. Being nice to them won't stop these people. This thin-slice of the Muslim world hates because they know no other way to vent from their misery, and we get to be the targets.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's a little more complicated then that? hrm? Religion is a funny thing.
But even so, time after time we see the front page of Democratic newspapers extol the 'horror' of diligence, and shut down another means of tracking these people before they do harm. In my America they would have been shot on television, with Muslim captions as they died. This isn't something that we can play around with: they're coming. Hell, they're here- watch the news for all the times the "incompetent" terrorists couldn't get it together. The Democrat news services are all about making their attempts seem foolish. We are on a slippery slope. The government makes the laws, and they have to follow them also. Is it too much to ask them to follow the same rules everyone else does? And if you want an America where people would have been shot on television to invoke fear, i hear there are several middle eastern countries that you would like. Iraq was one of them before we invaded them.
But when a Democrat is president, and he tries to send the police for the next big strike when an aircraft carrier is called for, will you remember this conversation?
You mean a thing called using minimal force? As a matter of fact I will remember this conversation, and I'll be proud that we didn't send in the aircraft carrier when that policeforce did it's job.
Also notice that, as the election looms, Democrats are starting to 'give' on this key issue: now they're starting to seem 'hawkish' by comparison....they know someone has to do the ac
I found myself looking over it to what it was talking about even in the first paragraph
I remember back when it first came out facebook was nicknamed stalkerbook. As a matter of fact, www.stalkerbook.net still forwards straight to facebook. Now, why did it earn that nickname? Because all of the information was "public" in that anyone who was your friend could see all your information and see whenever it changes. They would know when your classes are, when your going to be at a party, when you'll be studying, with minimal effort. In addition they would know 20 different ways to contact you from AIM to your Cell number, to possibly where you are living at the moment. And remember, this was all on a "one way street" as the author had put it. All the viewing of the information had to be pre-approved in one manner or another. Now, the author is proposing that we essentially get rid of that approval process and have all sites work with one another. It would essentially castrate social networking sites, not for the "exclusiveness" that others have been preaching, but rather because all of the information would be extremely vulnerable. IMO the better project, which the author did touch upon, would be the opening instant message clients to work with one another. Allowing AIM to contact MSN, or my Jabber account to contact either of them would be great, even if it will never work due to corporate mentality.
yea...your just as screwed from the sound of it.
except you are forgetting one key thing, for all values of A when the person get's caught, A becomes zero. The punishment to breaking into a bank and stealing 1,000,000$ is not return 999,999. That is not a punishment. It would be, for example, returning the money, paying for anything they broke, and having to help the bank run security for a little while (or be a teller or something like that). It turns a $1 million dollar theft into helping the company(or bank, or whatever) they just robbed. That actually feels like true justice.
kind of off topic, but they are at very least equal. Both scar the people for the remainder of their life. Just in one case, the life is longer. I have seen what's happened to people this has happened to. They really are just as bad.
you realize that your talking about the same group of people who think the Sun revolves around the earth, that Rhode Island is part of New York, and New Mexico is in a different country, right?
when was the last time you interacted with an average 19 year old? They are all idiots, with a few exceptions.
actually, i do love that idea...now just to find a whole bunch of people willing to go through the hassle
no...he'll look at the video tape. It was either a 20 second clip, or it was much longer. If it was a 20 second clip, then yes, the statement makes sense. If it was longer, then yea, your analogy makes sense.