The checksum of your arguments is df9abc41b28ec3c90688b55369aeefdca6e1c31ea38a387a1dbb64f5c876c224. As a palindrome, I call your argument circular and self-referencing, which are logical fallacies.
And what made you think my post wasn't satire too? I leave it as an exercise for you to detect the sarcasm in that post. Or if you prefer, get off my lawn.
As long as the hippie scientists are not eating into your pie, why do you care? Someone has a perception or standard of "value" different from yours. News at 11.
Or if they *are*, fight them. Even better, fight them "honestly". Stop whining.
Blasphemer! Apple's player is preventing the rogue, faithless DVDs from defiling the sacrosanctity of your Mac which is blessed by Steve personally. But Steve's mercy is great and He shall forgive and bless your family you if you repent and purchase the indulgence^W^W a new Mac..
Could it be that Plurk bribed MS's contractor to pirate itself, hoping to generate massive publicity from this incident, and they did get it? Plans within plans within plans...
I could have answered you with "If only you could see from my camera!", but instead, I'll probably show you some pics -- attack ships on fire at the shoulder of Orion, C-beams glittering through the darkness near the Tannhauser gate, and much more.. wait, you've already seen them? Google image search? Damn, I want more privacy, father!
Every year a whole shitload of peer-reviewed articles get published, most of which are worthless crap that are not necessarily lies.
Peer review is not a QA process. A review board of peers does not guarantee the quality of a paper just like a jury of peers does not guarantee justice. A paper passing peer review only means that the paper has met the *minimum* standard of getting published. It left to the readers to assess the value and trustworthiness of the paper, which is what *publication* is for in the first place. If I read a paper and don't agree with its author, I publish my own research to refute it rather than file a complaint against the reviewers (who are usually anonymous anyway), and wait for the feedback from the reviewers, and hopefully get it approved for publication asap.
But here, we're talking about the *leaked* stuff here. Being leaked means that the material has NOT passed peer review, and the above chivalrous way does not apply.
There are indeed "interesting" things going on according to the leaked material (esp. a readme file by an unlucky "Harry"), and it's interesting enough for a heated and hopefully fruitful discussion, which is NOT at the peer-reviewed-publication level. On the contrary, these discussions provides a good complement angle which is not necessarily worthless.
having read more than this article about it:
copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their profit in any form. doesn't matter if it's for blind, crippled orphans. they should pay too. slippery slope and all that. in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that. slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions. they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....
gods, i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...
T, FTFY. And as much as I hate it, I don't really blame them for it. They exist for a reason and the reason is profit, nothing else. Profit is *the* motivation of everything they do -- be it good or evil.
Have you ever met RMS face to face and listened to him explaining himself?
I have, and from my personal experience, he was nothing like an extremist. He has a rigid and well defined set of core principles WRT software (summarized in the "four freedoms") and he holds fast to them. But on other topics, he is very tolerant and shows great respect to others' views.
And he's very sensitive to the Dark Side, to what could possibly go wrong. This is the same sensitivity a careful programming expert possesses. A good programmer can sense the smell of bugs, terrible design, or poor implementation a mile away from the pile of computer code, and RMS can sense what could possibly breach his principles. A good programmer does not gain the ability of "smelling the bugs" by being an oversensitive, and neither did RMS. He is just careful -- He *thinks* carefully and so he anticipates the possible disaster.
I'm not trying to paint him as a flawless character, and if I sound like I was doing that, I apologize. I was simply telling my fellow/.ers my *personal* *impression* of him.
--all-servers
By default, when dnsmasq has more than one upstream server
available, it will send queries to just one server. Setting this
flag forces dnsmasq to send all queries to all available
servers. The reply from the server which answers first will be
returned to the original requestor.
Slashdot Mirror
... and they're already excluded from the intended demographic.
Or "Redundant"
andnothingofvaluewaslost
The checksum of your arguments is df9abc41b28ec3c90688b55369aeefdca6e1c31ea38a387a1dbb64f5c876c224. As a palindrome, I call your argument circular and self-referencing, which are logical fallacies.
T, FTFY.
And what made you think my post wasn't satire too? I leave it as an exercise for you to detect the sarcasm in that post. Or if you prefer, get off my lawn.
As long as the hippie scientists are not eating into your pie, why do you care? Someone has a perception or standard of "value" different from yours. News at 11.
Or if they *are*, fight them. Even better, fight them "honestly". Stop whining.
Blasphemer! Apple's player is preventing the rogue, faithless DVDs from defiling the sacrosanctity of your Mac which is blessed by Steve personally. But Steve's mercy is great and He shall forgive and bless your family you if you repent and purchase the indulgence^W^W a new Mac..
See parent post title. What part of "insider job" do you not understand?
Could it be that Plurk bribed MS's contractor to pirate itself, hoping to generate massive publicity from this incident, and they did get it? Plans within plans within plans...
...when you have exponentially more money...
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
... otherwise we could have had a chance of removing this godawful AJAX UI for good.
I could have answered you with "If only you could see from my camera!", but instead, I'll probably show you some pics -- attack ships on fire at the shoulder of Orion, C-beams glittering through the darkness near the Tannhauser gate, and much more.. wait, you've already seen them? Google image search? Damn, I want more privacy, father!
You can't "resolve" a URL. You resolve a DNS name which is part of the URL.
</nitpick>
Use the about:config editor. Come on, you're a slashdotter and should know better.
I'll just go on with enigmail.
Now *this* is the hard evidence that destroys the very foundation of the "floodgate" criers AND Theogenic Global Deluge deniers!!!11!
Every year a whole shitload of peer-reviewed articles get published, most of which are worthless crap that are not necessarily lies.
Peer review is not a QA process. A review board of peers does not guarantee the quality of a paper just like a jury of peers does not guarantee justice. A paper passing peer review only means that the paper has met the *minimum* standard of getting published. It left to the readers to assess the value and trustworthiness of the paper, which is what *publication* is for in the first place. If I read a paper and don't agree with its author, I publish my own research to refute it rather than file a complaint against the reviewers (who are usually anonymous anyway), and wait for the feedback from the reviewers, and hopefully get it approved for publication asap.
But here, we're talking about the *leaked* stuff here. Being leaked means that the material has NOT passed peer review, and the above chivalrous way does not apply.
There are indeed "interesting" things going on according to the leaked material (esp. a readme file by an unlucky "Harry"), and it's interesting enough for a heated and hopefully fruitful discussion, which is NOT at the peer-reviewed-publication level. On the contrary, these discussions provides a good complement angle which is not necessarily worthless.
Oh, and by the way, April is the cruellest month, breeding lilacs out of dead land, mixing memory and desire, stirring dull roots with spring rain ;-) [emphasis mine]
having read more than this article about it: copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their profit in any form. doesn't matter if it's for blind, crippled orphans. they should pay too. slippery slope and all that. in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that. slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions. they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....
gods, i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...
T, FTFY. And as much as I hate it, I don't really blame them for it. They exist for a reason and the reason is profit, nothing else. Profit is *the* motivation of everything they do -- be it good or evil.
And I tend to forgive them these days.
Have you ever met RMS face to face and listened to him explaining himself?
I have, and from my personal experience, he was nothing like an extremist. He has a rigid and well defined set of core principles WRT software (summarized in the "four freedoms") and he holds fast to them. But on other topics, he is very tolerant and shows great respect to others' views.
And he's very sensitive to the Dark Side, to what could possibly go wrong. This is the same sensitivity a careful programming expert possesses. A good programmer can sense the smell of bugs, terrible design, or poor implementation a mile away from the pile of computer code, and RMS can sense what could possibly breach his principles. A good programmer does not gain the ability of "smelling the bugs" by being an oversensitive, and neither did RMS. He is just careful -- He *thinks* carefully and so he anticipates the possible disaster.
I'm not trying to paint him as a flawless character, and if I sound like I was doing that, I apologize. I was simply telling my fellow /.ers my *personal* *impression* of him.
Definitely not. American Constitution is not meant to protect non-Americans' human rights. What do you think?
Dear Mozilla: Been there, done that. Frankly speaking, it sucks, and tastes like chicken. YMMV. We're all screwed anyway.
Not really. It could be both. A failed launch of missile by aliens in a Russian sub.
Use dnsmasq on your localhost.
From man page:
Sadly, CS Lite is no longer under active develop or maintenance.
And by the way, do you happen to know exactly what is the difference between "allow temporarily" and "allow for session" in CS Lite? Thanks.
Nevermind, it works now.