I work for an anonymous state college in the northeast.
Does your school support Linux? No, but we don't specifically block it either. In other words, you're on your own. If you can figure out how to get your distro to connect to our wireless network (WPA2/AES) then you can use the network. If you can't you might get lucky and find a student at the Help Desk who knows Ubuntu and can help you out, but if there's no one around you're out of luck.
Have you found it difficult or impossible to use Linux in concert with the school's computing services? For the most part, no. Connecting to the network is simple enough. Linux has a remote desktop application that's compatible with Citrix. If there's a particular web-based application that requires IE then you'll have to run it through WINE or use one of the Windows desktops found in one of the many computer labs across campus. Or install/tweak a native browser so that it represents itself as IE and see if the application is really dependent on IE or not (usually not).
Now for my own question/answer: Why don't you actively support Linux? It's used by a very small minority of our users and those users tend to be technically savvy -- at least enough to configure their wireless connection and get IE running under WINE. Thus the number of support requests for Linux is virtually zero. Why invest in training techs in Linux if they'll rarely (if ever) put it to use? We can better spend that money on network infrastructure and computing resources.
While it's still early in the process, does this offer hope that someone might finally make a good movie based on a game IP?
preemptive TL;DR: No.
The breadth of the Warcraft lore makes it impossible to fit even a small percent of it into a single movie. And Blizzard will certainly want to tie the movie into the game somehow, which will only hinder the creativity of whoever is tasked with writing the screenplay. There will probably be an overabundance of cheesy in-jokes to target the gamers, but will just come off as stupid to the average viewer. Visually it will almost certainly look nothing like the CG cut-scenes in Warcraft 3 or World of Warcraft, which is exactly what gamers of WoW will be expecting.
And the final nail in the coffin: This is the same guy who directed Spiderman 3. Imagine Thrall doing the emo dance.
I had heard about this earlier in the week and decided to give the demo exploit (which executes calc.exe) a run. As soon as I tried to save the HTML to a file Microsoft's Forefront A/V popped up with an alert detecting the shellcode within the sample code. Not bad, MS.
But if you really want to be safe you should be running noscript. It'll save you from running malicious code on sites you don't trust.
The point is that you don't have to spend lots of money on expensive hardware, a simple web browser with internet connectivity (over a fat pipe!) is all it takes. This saves you large amounts of cash.
It also opens up the possibility of allowing your games and applications to stay with you wherever you go. You could bring up a GaiKai iPhone app and play WoW during lunch or on the train or wherever. Once you get home you can fire it up on your big screen TV via the media center's web browser.
For the software companies this gives them a great opportunity to make even more money by moving to a subscription service. No longer do you pay once for Photoshop, now you pay maybe $5 or $10 a month to use it. To you it seems cheaper, to Adobe they see an unending stream of money that doesn't stop a month after release of a new product.
For the advertisers they have a new stream to inject themselves into. That's not any ordinary version of Photoshop, it's one that's been sponsored by Brand X and will have Brand X logos and styling and maybe even Brand X brushes and filters. Think of all the new possibilities to get eye time!
Bandwidth concerns? Bah. Worst-case you bulk up the hardware on the server and do some realtime encoding to H.264. The video quality might not be great, but you can still use all your apps regardless of available resources.
Privacy is, of course, the big concern. No longer do I worry about my login and password being hijacked between my machine and Blizzard, I now have to worry about the connection between my computer and "the cloud" as well as whatever hijinx there may be going in "the cloud".
And where, exactly, are these images I create in Photoshop being stored? Locally on my computer? That means "the cloud" and read/write to my computer. Do you really want that? But wait, "the cloud" has its own storage space and for a few extra dollars a month you can store all your goods there. Now you don't have to carry a flash drive around with you all the time. You just travel to your destination, connect to "the cloud", and there are your files! Of course "the cloud" company will need some sort of executive license agreement with provisions for responsibility and liability if data is lost or stolen. For that "the cloud" company can charge lots more dollars and stick the VPs on their own "executive cloud".
For the REALLY wealthy there will be a "personal cloud" in the form of a single server that is entirely at your disposal. With routine backups and lots of A/V and firewalls to keep you protected.
But for the elite wealthy, that 1% of 1%, there will be the home cloud. A machine that will sit on your desktop and do all of this without ever going out over the internet!
I like using Google Apps because I don't have to worry about keeping files updated across multiple computers. I think Google is safer than carrying a tangle of USB sticks about. If the file is that important or secret, I stick it onto a computer that has absolutely no net access, no modem, and no ethernet connected to it, no wireless, etc.
That's a nice idea, right up until Google suffers and outtage just as you need to pull critical documents off Google Apps.
And how is a computer any better than putting it on a smaller, simpler USB drive to pull from later when you need it?
And the idea that you would use a machine that has no net access is a good one, and ideal, it's hardly practical. You're not going to travel to a site with two laptops (one with a clean install of the OS with no physical network device) and your own that you do work on. You'll just bring yours and you'll plug that USB drive into your laptop when you need the documents. Maybe you'll flip the WiFi antennae off before you do so to force a block to the internet, but even that step probably will be skipped after a few months of this.
One solution would be a VPN into your company's network to retrieve the documents. But that, like Google Apps, depends on internet connectivity and provides a motivated attacker with many points to attack along the way. But at least you'll have an easier time calling in support when the VPN is down than you would when Google Apps is down.
AJAX, Silverlight, JScript are all 1990s state of the art technologies that accomplish nothing new in terms of innovation or functionality.
You and I and most web developers know this. The end user does not. And the end user drives the decision maker which drives the design. So you should start asking why the end user doesn't see this as nothing new.
The resulting applications bring nothing new to the table and are bloated and unmantainable compared to their circa 1996 network enabled desktop application cousins.
Except that
1) you have a broad platform that doesn't require a separate compile for each architecture it operates on. this results in lower maintenance and support costs
2) there's no "downloading" and "executing". this is seamless to the end-user.
3) if you update the application on the web server (a single point of maintenance) it's immediately updated for every instance, unlike a download-and-run application (including those that have a "check for updates" feature)
4) processing is shared between client and server, allowing for lower operation costs (at least from a hardware perspective)
5) there's a perceived "speedyness". ajax requests don't require transition to a new web page. to the end user this is a powerful and positive step forward from the forms and web page-based stuff you saw back in the 90s.
6) yes, JAVA offered much this in the early 90s, but it was slow and it took (and still takes) forever for the browser's JAVA plugin to load the first time a JAVA application is accessed. thus if feels laggy and slow, which the ajax app doesn't.
The CON to this is privacy, security, and accessibility. And honestly, nobody outside the industry cares about that. It's not the end-user's problem. So what if you're handing out a browser to every desktop that allows system-level access to the computer? And who cares if anyone can create a web page and embed whatever they want and make your computer do whatever they want. Who cares if your information can traced and siphoned off to some unknown third party. It's all under-the-hood. The end-user doesn't experience anything "bad". Out of sight, out of mind.
I can buy a Ferrari for a few hundred thousand or I can buy a Toyota for a few thousand. The Ferrari is certainly a better product, but if all I'm using it for is to get to and from work, why the hell would I waste money on the Ferrari?
That's why Apple's pricing is problematic. Sure it looks cute and you'll be the Apple of everyone's eye at the trendy coffee shop, but what's the point? To be seen with your laptop? Like the Ferrari, it's nothing more than a status symbol. It's showing off. I'd rather spend half the money and get more power and more capacity.
But but but the pixels-per-inch! Yes. And you can enjoy your 300 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets. But, like your more pixels per inch, they're unnecessary.
If you want to show off, fine. But don't try to argue value-for-money in the products you choose. It's futile.
considering what we've seen the RIAA due (sue people for ridiculous sums of money) this seems sensible.
The bully keeps hitting you in the face and you complain. When the bully starts to slap you, it doesn't hurt so much, so you're willing to take it. Problem is, both are wrong, and you shouldn't be allowing either in the first place.
So we start with ISPs monitoring your traffic and keeping a record of every mp3 you download. Then after takedown notices are no longer effective (or the RIAA takes the next step of their plan) you start getting a bill in the mail every month for each song you downloaded. Then you start getting targetted advertising as a third-party steps in and makes a deal with the ISP. So now they're going to try and sell you rock because the vast majority of music you download is rock. Pretty soon there's no longer any such thing as privacy between you and your ISP and the world can take a peek at your activity for a few pennies.
But each step seemed less harsh than the previous one, so it's okay.
Yet, when the secular progressives run everything literacy is now less than it was when GOD was actually in the classrooms. Cite your source. CIA states 99% literacy rate in the U.S. Curious that Cuba has the highest literacy rate at 99.8%.
And I'd definitely like to see a comparison of Secular schools to private religious schools in literacy. You state that God has something to do with literacy rates and then ask for proof?
So, if you're gonna complain, complain accurately. Take your own advice.
We have less literacy now because schools are too busy trying to teach left wing agendas and "social justice", and Islam is good but misunderstood crap. You really are very wrong on this. Cite me a real statistic that proves this statement. You can't, but at least try.
Sorry, but your whole point is blownup by the facts that RELIGION itself doesn't negate literacy, only stupid left wing agenda's do. What "facts"? You haven't provided any.
This won't stop money counterfeiters from creating money. Even if you added some kind of barcode that contained the fingerprint of the paper to every bill, the overhead to scan the bill would make it worthwhile only to large bills, so the counterfeiters stick to small bills. Or they reverse the fingerprint process and print valid barcodes on the bills they counterfeit.
But in terms of tracking objects, it's a great idea. If a document winds up in the wrong hands and the authorities recover it, they could then trace it back to its origins. Take it a step further and apply the concept to other objects. Maybe use xrays on components of a car to help ID stolen parts. Cost of implementation would make this work only with very high-end autos. Maybe something similar for weapons? Serial numbers can be filed down, but changing the unique composition of the metal would require a bit more work.
The best thing is it works with existing items, so you don't have to force people to buy new items for the system to work.
No! For security reasons, and some significant processing issues as well, the only supported Browser is Internet Explorer Release 6 or later.
"security reasons" can be a catch-all for anything, really. i know that firefox likes to start downloading content even before you've picked a place to save it, while IE will not start downloading until you've picked a location to save the file. so let's say you have a system where you're afforded a limited number of downloads. You click to download something but then hit the cancel button. Well if the file downloaded before you clicked that "cancel" button in Firefox the server won't know that and think you've downloaded the file, while that behavior doesn't happen in IE. So whenever I create a system that has a limited number of downloads feature I always alert the user to stick with IE.
A similar situation could exist in an application on the State of Colorado's web site. Thus leading to the more generic, user-friendly warning that they need to stick to IE for "security reasons". Because nobody wants to hear about the arcane minutea of a web browser's inner workings, "security reasons" is an easy way to get users to comply.
So yes, if people don't realize what they are missing, they won't miss it.
This is such a scary sentiment. It's stated with only the best of intentions, I'm sure, which is why it's so scary.
What you're essentially saying is that people don't know what's good for them, but you do, so you will impose your viewpoint on others. This sort of take on the world is behind the vast majority of conflict that's out there. And it all stems from these good intentions.
For example, healthy life is a happy life. I believe you should only eat vegetables, breads, and proteins in specific amounts every day. You should engage in exercise for X number of hours ever day. And you should not drink alcohol, smoke or engage in any "high risk" activities. If you do this, your life will be better. You don't know what your missing out on. I do. Therefore I will impose this upon you whether you want it or not.
I think one of the most amazing things about it all is how the replacement of one individual can really change the mood of so many people.
It's not just one person. It's the whole cabinet. And the impact these few people can have on the country is enormous. Just look at the Iraq war. It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who wanted to go into Iraq. Only them. They pushed that agenda and it happened without needing the approval of congress, the courts, or the public.
So you can't belittle the effect "one person" has on this country, because when it comes to the office of the president, that "one person" can have a huge and lasting impact.
Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.
Voice acting was better in the English version, which just doesn't happen.
I'm guessing you watched the English dub first. That slants the perspective you have on the character.
I watched it in Japanese first and then in English. I found the English voice to be a very flat, unemotive shell of the Japanese voice. The wide range of vocal emotion, from the loud, high-pitched squawks to the very deep, very quiet, very somber moment. Whereas the English voice just had the same sort of flat gravitas in his voice for every scene, even in the comedic bits.
English Spike was, in a word, emo. Which, to many I'm sure, is exactly what they want or expect in such a series. But I feel the Japanese voice gave an added dimension to the character. You could almost read what Spike was thinking just from the voice. The Japanese voice really cemented the show as one of the best to come out of Japan that I'd ever seen.
Hmmph indeed. Your blind acceptance of the drivel that the public gets spoon fed by the media makes me wonder why you read this site.
The blind dismissal of what the media/govt tell us just because they're the media/govt is just as bad the blind acceptance.
As for the videos being faked, I'm sure there are plenty of "experts" who will say it's not faked as well. Just like there were "experts" who said building 7 was intentionally demolished while other "experts" say it was the natural conclusion to a fire inside the weakened structure.
As there is no direct evidence in either case, what a person wants to believe will ultimately be what the person sees. You want a conspiracy, so you see one. Others can't possibly believe such a conspiracy could ever happen so they flat out ignore this "whackoism" and never question their own beliefs.
So I went to your links. Read what was there. And concluded that they present no evidence that the videos were faked. The first simply contains what-ifs and statements from pro-Taliban sources (not very reliable sources, IMO). The second compares screen captures to photos, but fails to compare properly scaled photos. One image is smaller than the other and they use that to claim one shows a smaller nose than the other. Well gee, I wonder why. And it uses very small screencaps with heavy mpeg distortion as proof it's a fake bin Laden, even though the size and distortion from that one from would more than account for the differences. The third link isn't even about bin Laden, but quotes the results of a researcher who wrote his own software to analyze the video and then draw assumptions from the results. It was not a strong argument.
You can level to 80 and also hit exalted with every reputation in the game without ever doing a daily quest.
How, sir, can you get exalted with the Sons of Hodir without doing dailies? They have no tabard. The only wait to rep grind is to do dailies. And tanks especially MUST grind out exalted with Sons of Hodir or they lose out on some tank enchantments.
The athiests will argue that there's no such thing as a "soul", only sentience and/or self-awareness.
Not at all.
I would argue that a "soul" is relative to the person assessing whether or not something has a "soul". Invest enough personal emotion into something (say a beloved pet) and then ask that person if that something has a soul. They'll probably tell you yes. And it's not just living things. Ask that neighbor with the '57 Chevy he's spent years tweaking in his garage if his car has a soul.
I would argue that saying something has a soul is simply another way of saying that person is emotionally connected.
The idea that Sprint doesn't get as much out of peering with Cogent as Cogent does peering with Sprint is absurd and PR propaganda to try and look like this was anything other than a power-play to keep a competitor at bay.
Unless you've got any real numbers to show there's really no more validity to your random statement than Sprint's.
It will be interesting to see how this goes in court.
Seems pretty open and shut. Cogent had a trial agreement then suddenly decided to stop paying, breaching the contract.
If I were a Sprint customer I would seriously consider moving to Cogent.
I'd flip that. This is the second time Cogent has had problems with its peer contracts. There's now a history of stability issues with Cogent. Cheap prices for the sake of stability?
Cowering from bullies is not the right thing to do.
And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?
So if the game had an audio track that included lines inspired by, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, you'd be okay with that? Maybe something that targets a specific ethic or racial group?
It's not cowering. It's admitting a mistake was made (they didn't get the lyrics to the song, they just added it because they liked the sound) and correcting it (recall). What's the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
I work for an anonymous state college in the northeast.
Does your school support Linux?
No, but we don't specifically block it either. In other words, you're on your own. If you can figure out how to get your distro to connect to our wireless network (WPA2/AES) then you can use the network. If you can't you might get lucky and find a student at the Help Desk who knows Ubuntu and can help you out, but if there's no one around you're out of luck.
Have you found it difficult or impossible to use Linux in concert with the school's computing services?
For the most part, no. Connecting to the network is simple enough. Linux has a remote desktop application that's compatible with Citrix. If there's a particular web-based application that requires IE then you'll have to run it through WINE or use one of the Windows desktops found in one of the many computer labs across campus. Or install/tweak a native browser so that it represents itself as IE and see if the application is really dependent on IE or not (usually not).
Now for my own question/answer: Why don't you actively support Linux?
It's used by a very small minority of our users and those users tend to be technically savvy -- at least enough to configure their wireless connection and get IE running under WINE. Thus the number of support requests for Linux is virtually zero. Why invest in training techs in Linux if they'll rarely (if ever) put it to use? We can better spend that money on network infrastructure and computing resources.
Any way to tell if your laptop has this "feature"?
And is there any way to disable it?
While it's still early in the process, does this offer hope that someone might finally make a good movie based on a game IP?
preemptive TL;DR: No.
The breadth of the Warcraft lore makes it impossible to fit even a small percent of it into a single movie. And Blizzard will certainly want to tie the movie into the game somehow, which will only hinder the creativity of whoever is tasked with writing the screenplay. There will probably be an overabundance of cheesy in-jokes to target the gamers, but will just come off as stupid to the average viewer. Visually it will almost certainly look nothing like the CG cut-scenes in Warcraft 3 or World of Warcraft, which is exactly what gamers of WoW will be expecting.
And the final nail in the coffin: This is the same guy who directed Spiderman 3. Imagine Thrall doing the emo dance.
I had heard about this earlier in the week and decided to give the demo exploit (which executes calc.exe) a run. As soon as I tried to save the HTML to a file Microsoft's Forefront A/V popped up with an alert detecting the shellcode within the sample code. Not bad, MS.
But if you really want to be safe you should be running noscript. It'll save you from running malicious code on sites you don't trust.
The point is that you don't have to spend lots of money on expensive hardware, a simple web browser with internet connectivity (over a fat pipe!) is all it takes. This saves you large amounts of cash.
It also opens up the possibility of allowing your games and applications to stay with you wherever you go. You could bring up a GaiKai iPhone app and play WoW during lunch or on the train or wherever. Once you get home you can fire it up on your big screen TV via the media center's web browser.
For the software companies this gives them a great opportunity to make even more money by moving to a subscription service. No longer do you pay once for Photoshop, now you pay maybe $5 or $10 a month to use it. To you it seems cheaper, to Adobe they see an unending stream of money that doesn't stop a month after release of a new product.
For the advertisers they have a new stream to inject themselves into. That's not any ordinary version of Photoshop, it's one that's been sponsored by Brand X and will have Brand X logos and styling and maybe even Brand X brushes and filters. Think of all the new possibilities to get eye time!
Bandwidth concerns? Bah. Worst-case you bulk up the hardware on the server and do some realtime encoding to H.264. The video quality might not be great, but you can still use all your apps regardless of available resources.
Privacy is, of course, the big concern. No longer do I worry about my login and password being hijacked between my machine and Blizzard, I now have to worry about the connection between my computer and "the cloud" as well as whatever hijinx there may be going in "the cloud".
And where, exactly, are these images I create in Photoshop being stored? Locally on my computer? That means "the cloud" and read/write to my computer. Do you really want that? But wait, "the cloud" has its own storage space and for a few extra dollars a month you can store all your goods there. Now you don't have to carry a flash drive around with you all the time. You just travel to your destination, connect to "the cloud", and there are your files! Of course "the cloud" company will need some sort of executive license agreement with provisions for responsibility and liability if data is lost or stolen. For that "the cloud" company can charge lots more dollars and stick the VPs on their own "executive cloud".
For the REALLY wealthy there will be a "personal cloud" in the form of a single server that is entirely at your disposal. With routine backups and lots of A/V and firewalls to keep you protected.
But for the elite wealthy, that 1% of 1%, there will be the home cloud. A machine that will sit on your desktop and do all of this without ever going out over the internet!
The future is amazin.
That's a nice idea, right up until Google suffers and outtage just as you need to pull critical documents off Google Apps.
And how is a computer any better than putting it on a smaller, simpler USB drive to pull from later when you need it?
And the idea that you would use a machine that has no net access is a good one, and ideal, it's hardly practical. You're not going to travel to a site with two laptops (one with a clean install of the OS with no physical network device) and your own that you do work on. You'll just bring yours and you'll plug that USB drive into your laptop when you need the documents. Maybe you'll flip the WiFi antennae off before you do so to force a block to the internet, but even that step probably will be skipped after a few months of this.
One solution would be a VPN into your company's network to retrieve the documents. But that, like Google Apps, depends on internet connectivity and provides a motivated attacker with many points to attack along the way. But at least you'll have an easier time calling in support when the VPN is down than you would when Google Apps is down.
Would hard-coded IP addresses to a hosts file work?
AJAX, Silverlight, JScript are all 1990s state of the art technologies that accomplish nothing new in terms of innovation or functionality.
You and I and most web developers know this. The end user does not. And the end user drives the decision maker which drives the design. So you should start asking why the end user doesn't see this as nothing new.
The resulting applications bring nothing new to the table and are bloated and unmantainable compared to their circa 1996 network enabled desktop application cousins.
Except that
1) you have a broad platform that doesn't require a separate compile for each architecture it operates on. this results in lower maintenance and support costs
2) there's no "downloading" and "executing". this is seamless to the end-user.
3) if you update the application on the web server (a single point of maintenance) it's immediately updated for every instance, unlike a download-and-run application (including those that have a "check for updates" feature)
4) processing is shared between client and server, allowing for lower operation costs (at least from a hardware perspective)
5) there's a perceived "speedyness". ajax requests don't require transition to a new web page. to the end user this is a powerful and positive step forward from the forms and web page-based stuff you saw back in the 90s.
6) yes, JAVA offered much this in the early 90s, but it was slow and it took (and still takes) forever for the browser's JAVA plugin to load the first time a JAVA application is accessed. thus if feels laggy and slow, which the ajax app doesn't.
The CON to this is privacy, security, and accessibility. And honestly, nobody outside the industry cares about that. It's not the end-user's problem. So what if you're handing out a browser to every desktop that allows system-level access to the computer? And who cares if anyone can create a web page and embed whatever they want and make your computer do whatever they want. Who cares if your information can traced and siphoned off to some unknown third party. It's all under-the-hood. The end-user doesn't experience anything "bad". Out of sight, out of mind.
It's all about the user majority experience.
Imaging that. Charging more for a better product!
I can buy a Ferrari for a few hundred thousand or I can buy a Toyota for a few thousand. The Ferrari is certainly a better product, but if all I'm using it for is to get to and from work, why the hell would I waste money on the Ferrari?
That's why Apple's pricing is problematic. Sure it looks cute and you'll be the Apple of everyone's eye at the trendy coffee shop, but what's the point? To be seen with your laptop? Like the Ferrari, it's nothing more than a status symbol. It's showing off. I'd rather spend half the money and get more power and more capacity.
But but but the pixels-per-inch! Yes. And you can enjoy your 300 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets. But, like your more pixels per inch, they're unnecessary.
If you want to show off, fine. But don't try to argue value-for-money in the products you choose. It's futile.
considering what we've seen the RIAA due (sue people for ridiculous sums of money) this seems sensible.
The bully keeps hitting you in the face and you complain. When the bully starts to slap you, it doesn't hurt so much, so you're willing to take it. Problem is, both are wrong, and you shouldn't be allowing either in the first place.
So we start with ISPs monitoring your traffic and keeping a record of every mp3 you download. Then after takedown notices are no longer effective (or the RIAA takes the next step of their plan) you start getting a bill in the mail every month for each song you downloaded. Then you start getting targetted advertising as a third-party steps in and makes a deal with the ISP. So now they're going to try and sell you rock because the vast majority of music you download is rock. Pretty soon there's no longer any such thing as privacy between you and your ISP and the world can take a peek at your activity for a few pennies.
But each step seemed less harsh than the previous one, so it's okay.
Brilliant idea! You might then tie that destroyed technological colony to the mythology of Atlantis.
Yet, when the secular progressives run everything literacy is now less than it was when GOD was actually in the classrooms.
Cite your source. CIA states 99% literacy rate in the U.S. Curious that Cuba has the highest literacy rate at 99.8%.
And I'd definitely like to see a comparison of Secular schools to private religious schools in literacy.
You state that God has something to do with literacy rates and then ask for proof?
So, if you're gonna complain, complain accurately.
Take your own advice.
We have less literacy now because schools are too busy trying to teach left wing agendas and "social justice", and Islam is good but misunderstood crap.
You really are very wrong on this. Cite me a real statistic that proves this statement. You can't, but at least try.
Sorry, but your whole point is blownup by the facts that RELIGION itself doesn't negate literacy, only stupid left wing agenda's do.
What "facts"? You haven't provided any.
Why was this post modded up in the first place?
I tried watching Fringe. It was a crappy low-rent X-files ripoff with little redeaming value.
And in 1987 I tried watching ST:TNG. It was a crappy, low-rent Original Series ripoff with little redeeming value.
Thankfully it was canceled, rather than give it a few seasons to mature into the best damn thing in ABC's lineup.
This won't stop money counterfeiters from creating money. Even if you added some kind of barcode that contained the fingerprint of the paper to every bill, the overhead to scan the bill would make it worthwhile only to large bills, so the counterfeiters stick to small bills. Or they reverse the fingerprint process and print valid barcodes on the bills they counterfeit.
But in terms of tracking objects, it's a great idea. If a document winds up in the wrong hands and the authorities recover it, they could then trace it back to its origins. Take it a step further and apply the concept to other objects. Maybe use xrays on components of a car to help ID stolen parts. Cost of implementation would make this work only with very high-end autos. Maybe something similar for weapons? Serial numbers can be filed down, but changing the unique composition of the metal would require a bit more work.
The best thing is it works with existing items, so you don't have to force people to buy new items for the system to work.
No! For security reasons, and some significant processing issues as well, the only supported Browser is Internet Explorer Release 6 or later.
"security reasons" can be a catch-all for anything, really. i know that firefox likes to start downloading content even before you've picked a place to save it, while IE will not start downloading until you've picked a location to save the file. so let's say you have a system where you're afforded a limited number of downloads. You click to download something but then hit the cancel button. Well if the file downloaded before you clicked that "cancel" button in Firefox the server won't know that and think you've downloaded the file, while that behavior doesn't happen in IE. So whenever I create a system that has a limited number of downloads feature I always alert the user to stick with IE.
A similar situation could exist in an application on the State of Colorado's web site. Thus leading to the more generic, user-friendly warning that they need to stick to IE for "security reasons". Because nobody wants to hear about the arcane minutea of a web browser's inner workings, "security reasons" is an easy way to get users to comply.
So yes, if people don't realize what they are missing, they won't miss it.
This is such a scary sentiment. It's stated with only the best of intentions, I'm sure, which is why it's so scary.
What you're essentially saying is that people don't know what's good for them, but you do, so you will impose your viewpoint on others. This sort of take on the world is behind the vast majority of conflict that's out there. And it all stems from these good intentions.
For example, healthy life is a happy life. I believe you should only eat vegetables, breads, and proteins in specific amounts every day. You should engage in exercise for X number of hours ever day. And you should not drink alcohol, smoke or engage in any "high risk" activities. If you do this, your life will be better. You don't know what your missing out on. I do. Therefore I will impose this upon you whether you want it or not.
So.
Still want to push your views on others?
I think one of the most amazing things about it all is how the replacement of one individual can really change the mood of so many people.
It's not just one person. It's the whole cabinet. And the impact these few people can have on the country is enormous. Just look at the Iraq war. It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who wanted to go into Iraq. Only them. They pushed that agenda and it happened without needing the approval of congress, the courts, or the public.
So you can't belittle the effect "one person" has on this country, because when it comes to the office of the president, that "one person" can have a huge and lasting impact.
Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.
It's the American bible.
The real big question is, how long will Slashdot's daily 2-minutes of hate orgy be able to last now that Bush is gone?
I think your post contributed quite nicely to the hate orgy. Looks like we will be able to maintain the hate orgy after all.
Voice acting was better in the English version, which just doesn't happen.
I'm guessing you watched the English dub first. That slants the perspective you have on the character.
I watched it in Japanese first and then in English. I found the English voice to be a very flat, unemotive shell of the Japanese voice. The wide range of vocal emotion, from the loud, high-pitched squawks to the very deep, very quiet, very somber moment. Whereas the English voice just had the same sort of flat gravitas in his voice for every scene, even in the comedic bits.
English Spike was, in a word, emo. Which, to many I'm sure, is exactly what they want or expect in such a series. But I feel the Japanese voice gave an added dimension to the character. You could almost read what Spike was thinking just from the voice. The Japanese voice really cemented the show as one of the best to come out of Japan that I'd ever seen.
Hmmph indeed. Your blind acceptance of the drivel that the public gets spoon fed by the media makes me wonder why you read this site.
The blind dismissal of what the media/govt tell us just because they're the media/govt is just as bad the blind acceptance.
As for the videos being faked, I'm sure there are plenty of "experts" who will say it's not faked as well. Just like there were "experts" who said building 7 was intentionally demolished while other "experts" say it was the natural conclusion to a fire inside the weakened structure.
As there is no direct evidence in either case, what a person wants to believe will ultimately be what the person sees. You want a conspiracy, so you see one. Others can't possibly believe such a conspiracy could ever happen so they flat out ignore this "whackoism" and never question their own beliefs.
So I went to your links. Read what was there. And concluded that they present no evidence that the videos were faked. The first simply contains what-ifs and statements from pro-Taliban sources (not very reliable sources, IMO). The second compares screen captures to photos, but fails to compare properly scaled photos. One image is smaller than the other and they use that to claim one shows a smaller nose than the other. Well gee, I wonder why. And it uses very small screencaps with heavy mpeg distortion as proof it's a fake bin Laden, even though the size and distortion from that one from would more than account for the differences. The third link isn't even about bin Laden, but quotes the results of a researcher who wrote his own software to analyze the video and then draw assumptions from the results. It was not a strong argument.
You can level to 80 and also hit exalted with every reputation in the game without ever doing a daily quest.
How, sir, can you get exalted with the Sons of Hodir without doing dailies? They have no tabard. The only wait to rep grind is to do dailies. And tanks especially MUST grind out exalted with Sons of Hodir or they lose out on some tank enchantments.
The athiests will argue that there's no such thing as a "soul", only sentience and/or self-awareness.
Not at all.
I would argue that a "soul" is relative to the person assessing whether or not something has a "soul". Invest enough personal emotion into something (say a beloved pet) and then ask that person if that something has a soul. They'll probably tell you yes. And it's not just living things. Ask that neighbor with the '57 Chevy he's spent years tweaking in his garage if his car has a soul.
I would argue that saying something has a soul is simply another way of saying that person is emotionally connected.
The idea that Sprint doesn't get as much out of peering with Cogent as Cogent does peering with Sprint is absurd and PR propaganda to try and look like this was anything other than a power-play to keep a competitor at bay.
Unless you've got any real numbers to show there's really no more validity to your random statement than Sprint's.
It will be interesting to see how this goes in court.
Seems pretty open and shut. Cogent had a trial agreement then suddenly decided to stop paying, breaching the contract.
If I were a Sprint customer I would seriously consider moving to Cogent.
I'd flip that. This is the second time Cogent has had problems with its peer contracts. There's now a history of stability issues with Cogent. Cheap prices for the sake of stability?
Cowering from bullies is not the right thing to do.
And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?
So if the game had an audio track that included lines inspired by, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, you'd be okay with that? Maybe something that targets a specific ethic or racial group?
It's not cowering. It's admitting a mistake was made (they didn't get the lyrics to the song, they just added it because they liked the sound) and correcting it (recall). What's the problem?