Sure, Saddam is living the good life, and sure, his subjects aren't.
But Saddam's quality of life isn't at stake, here. Nobody especially cares how many palaces he has or the size of his harem. The important point is that he lacks the capability to threaten other nations, since he's proven that he'll use that ability if given the chance.
BTW, the article mentions that there would be no foamy head because that requires gravity. But since it is microgravity, not true 0-g, there would be a slight amount of foam, yes? And couldn't you apply a spin to the barrel to force any bubbles to the surface of the beer?
First: it really is microgravity. Like, really small.
Second: Spinning a thing encourages the heavier stuff to move to the outside. So, surprisingly enough (even to me, as I think of this), spinning beer in microgravity would actually make the bubbles go to the middle of the beer.
Every link that I hit from the google.net search (and the click-path from there on) was potentially recorded by google.net.
Actually, they couldn't've been tracking you. Just being inside their frameset gives the site no additional powers to track you. You're not going through their servers, and they have no additional JavaScript powers to track you just because you're in their frameset.
One at a time: It's really, really difficult for a web proxy to keep you inside of the proxy, whether that proxy be for the purpose of tracking you, providing anonymity for you, or whatever. Believe me, I know, building such a proxy is what I do for a living. Of course, were such a proxy to keep you inside of the proxy, it could track you at an arbitrary level of detail.
It's pretty much impossible, barring some horrible bug in Netscape or IE that you'll likely hear about on the 6 o'clock news, for one page in a frameset (or in another window that you have open at the same time; it's all the same to the browser) to tell what you're doing on another frame, unless the two frames are from the same domain. And in order to keep you in the same domain, it would have to proxy your requests. See above.
So, take heart. While I can't check to see exactly what google.net is doing (since the site seems to be down at the moment), I can fairly well assure you that whatever they're doing, they're not logging your activities. Because they can't.
Okay, let's change the emphasis marks a bit and see what happens.
I have no problem with typo squatting as a whole, but there are a dozen Slashdot typo sites, one of which frames Slashdot with a 2nd banner ad. Now I don't care... but this fools about 1 person every 2-3 days, and they flame me for selling out and doing something so horrible as framing Slashdot for extra ad space. So I guess typo sites that frame the site are pretty slimey, but as long as the typo site provides a link to the correct site, I'm totally cool with 'em.
Now, I'm not sure, but this doesn't look to me like he "couldn't care less". It seems to me that he was fairly irritated. I'll grant you that he seems more irritated now, but I think some more responsible highlighting of words is in order, here.
The lawful evil person would always weigh the alternatives and do what was more convenient, within the law. If he had the money, he'd definitely pay, since otherwise he'd be breaking the law.
I don't agree with your table. The Good characters couldn't give money to Time-Warner. For the Lawful Good character, this means you can't watch the movie (unless perhaps you have a friend who already legitimately owns the movie, and you're watching it there, but even then a truly Good character might balk at it). The Neutral Good character is off campaigning for Nader, so he doesn't have time to watch movies.
The Chaotic Good character snuck into the theater, and probably snuck in some snacks, too.
The Evil characters have no problem with giving money to Time-Warner. The Lawful Evil character has to pay in order to see the movie (but he probably already has contacts in the industry: good point). The Chaotic Evil character might pay, might not, but would definitely put his feet up on the chair in front of him, and would probably strew popcorn about and loudly make obscene comments during the movie. The Neutral Evil character goes to the movie, pays (it's easier that way), and at some point probably engages the Chaotic Evil character in combat sometime during the movie just to shut him up.
Those of Neutral Good/Evil alignment don't care about Time Warner. Of course, the Lawful Neutrals still pay. It's the other two Neutrals I don't know about. (And I've really never liked the idea that Chaotic Neutrals always roll dice to make their decisions for them. They don't like randomness, they like Chaos. They probably sneak into the movie precisely to make obscene comments.)
Actually, I think Mr_Perl is right. True neutrals aren't really neutral. They just always fight to keep a balance between good and evil, and between law and chaos.
Conscience strikes: should I see this movie and give my money to Time-Warner?
It all depends. If you're Lawful Evil aligned, there's no problem at all with seeing a Time-Warner movie. (If you're Chaotic Evil aligned, you might want instead to sneak into the movie. Chaotic Good might also do this, as they might rationalize that it's not evil since you'd not be giving money to Time-Warner.)
I'm not saying I agree, but that is what I gleaned from the discussions that have unfolded on slashdot.
If you don't agree, don't repeat it. If you do agree, say it with your own voice, back it up, and be prepared to defend your position.
But a lot of people felt profit was driving this release, and that's a small step down the road to the dark side.
I dunno, man. I think it's a small step down the road to being able to feed yourself.
Newsflash: Companies need profit to survive. And guess what? They need to sell things to make a profit. If you have any problems with the quality, come out and say it. But don't hide behind this "we hate profit" banner.
I'm really, really tired of this wishy-washy "me too"-ism.
Does this mean that I am not a geek? I am surprised Katz hasn't written on the subject.:)
I was an intern at Hewlett-Packard, working with Jim Donnelly, a former HP calculator engineer (extremely cool guy, BTW). Once, we're walking with another engineer, and the other engineer says something about Bistromathics. Jim takes it in stride, but I'm lost.
I ask, "What's Bistromathics?"
Jim and the other engineer just sort of look at each other, and Jim wonders aloud how he's going to explain this. "Haven't you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy before?"
It dawns on me: "Oh, that Bistromathics."
This had a point. I promise: Douglas Adams is pretty much required reading for any self-respecting geek.
What do you think the Constitutional problem with the DMCA is? What clause of the Consitution does it violate? What is the relevant case law?
I'll admit that this is just my own vague feeling on the subject. IANAL. Still, I have some means of backing up my statement: that the DMCA, as I currently understand it, violates Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
What the DMCA provides, in effect (where "effect" == Judge Kaplan's ruling), is perfect, eternal control of the media so protected. This seems to me to be in direct violation of the above clause.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so this could just be wishful thinking on my part.
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the public property -- in this case, the spectrum -- was given away. It was sold. The media companies paid for it, and the people (through their government) received the money. Now, you might argue they did not pay enough, but they did pay.
I'm definitely not saying that it was given to the companies free of charge, though I can understand why you might think I meant that. I'm not really even saying that they weren't charged enough. What I meant to express, rather, was that the FCC is granting rights that it shouldn't be granting, regardless of how much the licensees paid for their respective spectrum allocations.
When you're granted a license to broadcast, you're already given a monopoly on a given frequency band, for a given wattage (or geographical area, I'm not sure). But the spectrum still belongs to the people, not to any particular company. It seems, therefore, that we, the people, should be entitled to fair use of the content broadcast. Right now, we are: you can tape the last episode of Survivor, if you want, or record the year-end countdown of top hits on your favorite radio station. You can even save it for posterity, or give the tape (or whatever) to your friends. You just can't sell it.
The technology that this regulation would require would effectively push the people off of the last toe-hold they had on the radio spectrum. The people as individuals (not as represented by their government) would lose their last semblance of ownership of the frequencies licensed to the television networks.
I don't know why, but this depresses me more than anything I've seen recently on the subject.
Copy-protected VHS tapes didn't seem to matter. You could still copy them, but copying them left a tell-tale tag. Of course, it was only illegal to make illegal copies and then rent them out for money, so no harm done. Fair use is preserved, and people trying to make a quick buck off of the work of others get what they deserve.
Copy protection on DAT recorders really sucked, but it still didn't seem all that bad. Maybe that was just because I wasn't a musician or musical artist.
SDMI really rankled me, but hey, it doesn't stop me from recording my *own* MP3s. And now that things like Ogg Vorbis are coming out, this is really irrelevant.
Encyrpted DVDs aren't great, but somehow I don't mind that as much. You paid for it, you play it, you can't copy it. I really don't like it, but somehow it seems like something we could overcome.
The DMCA really really sucks, but that one seems destined to be destroyed in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty confident.
But when the federal government starts mandating total copy protection of media broadcast on the open spectrum, the property of the people, I feel much more betrayed than I did before. The Executive branch, much harder to control than the legislative, is taking away an entire chunk of property that used to belong to the people as a whole, and giving it wholesale to a small handful of verylargecompanies.
Interestingly, reminding myself that I don't watch TV doesn't seem to help. The FCC is overstepping its bounds, here, and I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.
well, it isn't completely trivial to switch from one distribution to another, but I can't see how anyone could regard making the change as a disaster.
Quite so. Or, for that matter, switching from some distro of Linux to any of the BSDs.
You essentially have three (business-able) OS groups out there: Unix (and Unix-like), Windows, and MacOS. Switching between any of those groups to the other *would* be a disaster. And Unix is the only one of those "groups" that is owned by more than a single company.
Which makes Unix a special case. Within Unix you have HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, Ultrix, a few other proprietary systems, BSDi, Linux, and the Free/Net/Open BSDs. It's important to remember, though, that most Unixes require specialized hardware. Linux, the Free/Net/Open BSDs, and Solaris are the only exceptions of any merit (which rules out SCO) that I can see.
Now, Solaris' hardware support for Intel sucks. Linux and the BSDs are really the only OSes that can be both 1: used on other hardware with little disadvantage and 2: interchanged on the same hardware while maintaining binary compatibility.
So, yes, in all, I quite agree with you in that ones choice of Linux distro is hardly a "betting the company" type of decision.
No, that's wrong. It was, in fact, in 2010. Remember? The sea creature was entirely unexpected, because they (the Chinese)didn't think any life was there. So it couldn't have been in 2061, since by then humanity knew in no uncertain terms that there was life on Europa.
In 2061, they did land (well, crash) on it again, played a bit with a mutiny and some diamond crystals, and then were rescued. But there was no sea monster, and no dastardly Chinese conspiracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, Saddam is living the good life, and sure, his subjects aren't.
But Saddam's quality of life isn't at stake, here. Nobody especially cares how many palaces he has or the size of his harem. The important point is that he lacks the capability to threaten other nations, since he's proven that he'll use that ability if given the chance.
First: it really is microgravity. Like, really small.
Second: Spinning a thing encourages the heavier stuff to move to the outside. So, surprisingly enough (even to me, as I think of this), spinning beer in microgravity would actually make the bubbles go to the middle of the beer.
Actually, they couldn't've been tracking you. Just being inside their frameset gives the site no additional powers to track you. You're not going through their servers, and they have no additional JavaScript powers to track you just because you're in their frameset.
One at a time: It's really, really difficult for a web proxy to keep you inside of the proxy, whether that proxy be for the purpose of tracking you, providing anonymity for you, or whatever. Believe me, I know, building such a proxy is what I do for a living. Of course, were such a proxy to keep you inside of the proxy, it could track you at an arbitrary level of detail.
It's pretty much impossible, barring some horrible bug in Netscape or IE that you'll likely hear about on the 6 o'clock news, for one page in a frameset (or in another window that you have open at the same time; it's all the same to the browser) to tell what you're doing on another frame, unless the two frames are from the same domain. And in order to keep you in the same domain, it would have to proxy your requests. See above.
So, take heart. While I can't check to see exactly what google.net is doing (since the site seems to be down at the moment), I can fairly well assure you that whatever they're doing, they're not logging your activities. Because they can't.
Okay, let's change the emphasis marks a bit and see what happens.
Now, I'm not sure, but this doesn't look to me like he "couldn't care less". It seems to me that he was fairly irritated. I'll grant you that he seems more irritated now, but I think some more responsible highlighting of words is in order, here.
Woo hoo! It works. You rock.
The lawful evil person would always weigh the alternatives and do what was more convenient, within the law. If he had the money, he'd definitely pay, since otherwise he'd be breaking the law.
I don't agree with your table. The Good characters couldn't give money to Time-Warner. For the Lawful Good character, this means you can't watch the movie (unless perhaps you have a friend who already legitimately owns the movie, and you're watching it there, but even then a truly Good character might balk at it). The Neutral Good character is off campaigning for Nader, so he doesn't have time to watch movies. The Chaotic Good character snuck into the theater, and probably snuck in some snacks, too.
The Evil characters have no problem with giving money to Time-Warner. The Lawful Evil character has to pay in order to see the movie (but he probably already has contacts in the industry: good point). The Chaotic Evil character might pay, might not, but would definitely put his feet up on the chair in front of him, and would probably strew popcorn about and loudly make obscene comments during the movie. The Neutral Evil character goes to the movie, pays (it's easier that way), and at some point probably engages the Chaotic Evil character in combat sometime during the movie just to shut him up.
Those of Neutral Good/Evil alignment don't care about Time Warner. Of course, the Lawful Neutrals still pay. It's the other two Neutrals I don't know about. (And I've really never liked the idea that Chaotic Neutrals always roll dice to make their decisions for them. They don't like randomness, they like Chaos. They probably sneak into the movie precisely to make obscene comments.)
Actually, I think Mr_Perl is right. True neutrals aren't really neutral. They just always fight to keep a balance between good and evil, and between law and chaos.
Not sure, but a co-worker just said that true neutrals definitely shouldn't be voting in the election.
It all depends. If you're Lawful Evil aligned, there's no problem at all with seeing a Time-Warner movie. (If you're Chaotic Evil aligned, you might want instead to sneak into the movie. Chaotic Good might also do this, as they might rationalize that it's not evil since you'd not be giving money to Time-Warner.)
If you don't agree, don't repeat it. If you do agree, say it with your own voice, back it up, and be prepared to defend your position.
I dunno, man. I think it's a small step down the road to being able to feed yourself.
Newsflash: Companies need profit to survive. And guess what? They need to sell things to make a profit. If you have any problems with the quality, come out and say it. But don't hide behind this "we hate profit" banner.
I'm really, really tired of this wishy-washy "me too"-ism.
I was an intern at Hewlett-Packard, working with Jim Donnelly, a former HP calculator engineer (extremely cool guy, BTW). Once, we're walking with another engineer, and the other engineer says something about Bistromathics. Jim takes it in stride, but I'm lost.
I ask, "What's Bistromathics?"
Jim and the other engineer just sort of look at each other, and Jim wonders aloud how he's going to explain this. "Haven't you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy before?"
It dawns on me: "Oh, that Bistromathics."
This had a point. I promise: Douglas Adams is pretty much required reading for any self-respecting geek.
Hey, um, good idea. :-)
I think this FCC silliness is just what I needed to finally jolt myself into real action.
I'll admit that this is just my own vague feeling on the subject. IANAL. Still, I have some means of backing up my statement: that the DMCA, as I currently understand it, violates Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution:
What the DMCA provides, in effect (where "effect" == Judge Kaplan's ruling), is perfect, eternal control of the media so protected. This seems to me to be in direct violation of the above clause.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so this could just be wishful thinking on my part.
I'm definitely not saying that it was given to the companies free of charge, though I can understand why you might think I meant that. I'm not really even saying that they weren't charged enough. What I meant to express, rather, was that the FCC is granting rights that it shouldn't be granting, regardless of how much the licensees paid for their respective spectrum allocations.
When you're granted a license to broadcast, you're already given a monopoly on a given frequency band, for a given wattage (or geographical area, I'm not sure). But the spectrum still belongs to the people, not to any particular company. It seems, therefore, that we, the people, should be entitled to fair use of the content broadcast. Right now, we are: you can tape the last episode of Survivor, if you want, or record the year-end countdown of top hits on your favorite radio station. You can even save it for posterity, or give the tape (or whatever) to your friends. You just can't sell it.
The technology that this regulation would require would effectively push the people off of the last toe-hold they had on the radio spectrum. The people as individuals (not as represented by their government) would lose their last semblance of ownership of the frequencies licensed to the television networks.
I don't know why, but this depresses me more than anything I've seen recently on the subject.
Interestingly, reminding myself that I don't watch TV doesn't seem to help. The FCC is overstepping its bounds, here, and I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.
Blargh. Make that "c".
Indeed. I chose d, and subsequently typed it as I'd pronounce it. :-)
Quite so. Or, for that matter, switching from some distro of Linux to any of the BSDs.
You essentially have three (business-able) OS groups out there: Unix (and Unix-like), Windows, and MacOS. Switching between any of those groups to the other *would* be a disaster. And Unix is the only one of those "groups" that is owned by more than a single company.
Which makes Unix a special case. Within Unix you have HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, Ultrix, a few other proprietary systems, BSDi, Linux, and the Free/Net/Open BSDs. It's important to remember, though, that most Unixes require specialized hardware. Linux, the Free/Net/Open BSDs, and Solaris are the only exceptions of any merit (which rules out SCO) that I can see.
Now, Solaris' hardware support for Intel sucks. Linux and the BSDs are really the only OSes that can be both 1: used on other hardware with little disadvantage and 2: interchanged on the same hardware while maintaining binary compatibility.
So, yes, in all, I quite agree with you in that ones choice of Linux distro is hardly a "betting the company" type of decision.
'Twas Jackson, and it was in regard to the Supreme Court ruling that the US couldn't move the Florida indians to Oklahoma.
No, that's wrong. It was, in fact, in 2010. Remember? The sea creature was entirely unexpected, because they (the Chinese)didn't think any life was there. So it couldn't have been in 2061, since by then humanity knew in no uncertain terms that there was life on Europa.
In 2061, they did land (well, crash) on it again, played a bit with a mutiny and some diamond crystals, and then were rescued. But there was no sea monster, and no dastardly Chinese conspiracy.
Oops. Forgot to include the SDML tag: <joke>.
(But Quake is more important than micropayments, even if not more important than saving the world.)
No dice. The more quake, the less bandwidth? Eek. :-)
They're still in production, just not in development.
Well, okay, they *sort of* are. The 49G/GX is out, now but it's pretty much the same as a 48.
In case anyone is still reading this thread.
Um, that wasn't his point. I believe he was talking about the fact that they owned both doofer.com and doofer.net.