$800,000/5 million subscribers = $0.16 per subscriber. Yeah, but 80Gbps/5 million subscribers = 2kBps. How long can you keep 5 million subscribers with speeds like that?
If you linked up the FBI, CIA,and DHS windows computers you would have a pretty wide network... ...with easily determined IP-blocks that can be easily black-listed. Hell, PeerGuardian would do a pretty decent job defending against that without even having to get fancy.
...if an ant bites us we step on it, if a dog bites us, we kick it... I think you're over-simplifying. Your ant and dog are willing attackers. If civilians were volunteering their computers to participate in the attack, it's a no-brainer. In my opinion, civilians willingly participating in an attack are no longer civilians (military law and technical definition of "civilian" may differ - IANAL).
However, most botnets are assembled from compromised computers belonging to people who lack the sophistication to properly secure them. That's a more complex issue - Maybe we go ahead and nuke their computers anyway, but it deserves more consideration than stomping on a hostile ant.
Because, of course, if I haven't got anything to hide, why would I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something? Reveal that you're using it and do a bad job of hiding and sharing a downloaded episode of Doctor Who. Protect everything else using TrueCrypt.
Has anyone used it recently to testify to any speed/reliability increase? It's been a few years for me too. Is there anything more interesting available there now than dodgy porn?
Do you realize how long this sentence is? Fine for court documents, but not for a casual news site. Sometimes, due either to an attempt to communicate a complicated idea or the desire to expand on a simple idea ad nauseum for novelty purposes, a sentence will carry on for extended lines and, if properly authored by an individual using simple words and eschewing obfuscation, it will not necessarily be difficult for the general public to understand, even without the assistance of a lawyer, translator, or advanced Communications degree.
are they then engaging in censorship? Yes.
Are they then punishable? No, because that wouldn't remotely constitute blocking the viewing of US government/government-financed web sites in foreign countries.
I can accept that a lot of people won't RTFA, but is it too much trouble to RTF summary?
But, assuming you leave the light on 24 hours a day and figuring $0.10/kWh for a bulb using 9 W instead of 40 W, it will pay itself off in under 3 years!
Of course, if you're one of those people that don't leave their lights on all day and night, YMMV.
But censoring against your own citizens is still A-OK. This act prevents US companies from preventing the transfer of some US information to foreign countries. Are you suggesting that they're currently blocking US government/government-sponsored sites from viewing in the US? In that case, what audience are they being hosted for?
Why is he allowed to waive a person's rights for national security purposes? I agree that an individual's rights shouldn't be infringed upon, but I don't understand how that's relevant to this bill. If I understand it correctly, it says that the president can prevent information on government or government-funded web sites from being disseminated to other countries. Right or wrong, that has nothing to do with the rights of American citizens.
Cars are more dangerous than guns, in my opinion. The chances of surviving a gunshot to the body are much higher than surviving a car slamming into you center mass. By that logic, planes are more dangerous than cars. The chances of surviving a car slamming into you center mass are much higher than surviving a plane slamming into you center mass. Not quite the same thing. Cars could be considered more dangerous than guns because: P(Getting hit by car) * P(Dying from a car impact) > P(Getting shot) * P(Dying from a gunshot wound) Now, even though the odds of dying after being struck by a plane are probably pretty high, the chances of being hit by one are pretty low. I could err by a few feet while walking down the sidewalk and get creamed by a car, but I'd have to really go out of my way to get hit by a plane. Gun shots fall somewhere in between.
Now, all that GP pointed out was: P(Dying from a car impact) > P(Dying from a gunshot wound) And that of course is incomplete and can't be extended to planes, etc. But I suspect that he thought we'd use a little common sense.
Try painting Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (the Disney versions) on the wall of your local daycare center and you'll find out quickly how mistaken you are. How does that make GP wrong? It sounds like you're both pointing out: Story: Public domain Likenesses created by Disney: Disney's Yes, for right or wrong, Disney will demand compensation for everything that they legally can. But their lawyers are very good and know where the lines are.
By your way of thinking we should bash Newton, Aristotle and others that made great achievements just because their ideas are now obsolete. Newton's ideas are obsolete? They seem pretty solid to me. Relatively speaking, there are very few cases where his ideas are insufficient.
If you were trying just to be funny then learn some new friggin jokes. I'm new here and I'm already tired of this everlasting bash on jokes that soar over your head. If you don't like somebody's humor, don't laugh. But do you really have to announce to the world that you didn't find it funny and be ugly to the guy that tried? That's just bad karma, man - Don't be hatin'. A bad joke is a world better than a pointless flame. (Unless it involves Soviet Russia, overlords, etc. Then it's just as painful.)
The statement "Why is it people here feel like they always have to prove they're smarter than everyone else on/.?" is redundant. You should say it rather like this: "Why is it people on/. feel like they always have to prove they're smarter than everyone else?" I've been helping people improve sentence structure since I was 3 - Allow me to assist.
The basic problem with the revision you've suggested is that it lacks the clarification present in the original statement regarding the subject's target. In the original statement, "people here" are proving their superiority to "everyone else on/.". In your statement, "people on/." are proving their superiority to "everyone else". This leaves open the interpretation that/. users try to best everyone whether on/. or elsewhere - An assertion not allowed by the original context. Perhaps a better alternative would be "Why do/. users feel the need to prove that they're smarter than each other?" Full clarification with a reduced appearance of redundancy.
Let me know if you need any more help, I'm ever so smart.
The really sad thing is that the customer service is usually better than the gas station/grocery store anyway Really. Try walking into a liquor store and asking the clerk to sample the whiskey. And, if it's not up to snuff, tell him that you only want to buy half the bottle and that you're not going to pay full price. Good luck.
Not true....there are algorithms that determine how much you have drunk... It doesn't change the controls, it simulates the difficulty in walking straight. I think you misunderstood GPP. In the situation you describe, the game has determined and simulated the intoxication level of the character. Not the player. The game has no idea whether I'm sitting at the keyboard with a bottle of Jack.
Besides which, you could make the argument that this is counterproductive in terms of reducing drinking -- prohibit something and you just make it that much more attractive for teenagers. There's another side effect too. Back before my buddies and I turned 21, booze was too much trouble to acquire (have to find somebody to pull for you, pretend to like him/share with him/whatever, etc.) So, we typically just avoided the whole mess and sat around smoking weed. Those retailers never check ID.
I understand that MADD is all about drunk driving, but is that really the most disturbing thing that the player is allowed to do in the game? I've played a couple of the previous installments and while playing, I have beaten/run down innocent pedestrians, killed cops, intentionally rammed random cars with my stolen fire truck, set fire to little old ladies, etc. Is DWI really worse than any of those?
As a side note, doing all of those things in the game has only lead me to try a couple of them in real life. So I can personally debunk the myth that game violence leads to real-world violence. I mean, who among you can claim that you've never run down pedestrians in a stolen fire truck?
In this case, I believe that it's just legacy. CRTs were (are) sniffable and the old-school coax lines certainly had EMF concerns. The switch was made from coax to fiber and they kept the proximity rules the same.
Compressing an element with a 100-million-year+ half life enough to achieve critical mass would take an implosion that would dwarf the yield of the nuclear material and may, as you say, "crack the planet in half". Definitely not cigarette-pack size, though - Think small moon. Would be a dream challenge for an explosives engineer, though.
BTW Uranium 233 is also pretty good at making bombs. Yeah, but you have to refine the hell out of it - More than 5 ppm of U-232 and you fall short of weapons grade...
U-235 is the sweet stuff - Naturally occurring and you only need to refine it to about 90%. Definitely the gun-weapon material of choice.
With no replacement yet in sight for its Shuttles, which are scheduled to be retired in 2010.
How terribly sad. Thanks, George Bush. But, IIRC, George promised us that we'd be putting a man on Mars. Just like his exit strategy, he has a solid plan - He's just waiting on his last day in office to surprise us with it. Have a little faith.
Internet access gets faster -> Web sites get bigger Hard drives get bigger -> Applications use more space Media storage increases -> Home videos get larger and quality improves CPUs get faster -> Windows programmers add "features" and chow down on cycles Fish bowls get larger -> Goldfish grow...
Slashdot Mirror
...if an ant bites us we step on it, if a dog bites us, we kick it... I think you're over-simplifying. Your ant and dog are willing attackers. If civilians were volunteering their computers to participate in the attack, it's a no-brainer. In my opinion, civilians willingly participating in an attack are no longer civilians (military law and technical definition of "civilian" may differ - IANAL).However, most botnets are assembled from compromised computers belonging to people who lack the sophistication to properly secure them. That's a more complex issue - Maybe we go ahead and nuke their computers anyway, but it deserves more consideration than stomping on a hostile ant.
I'll ship you one for the bargain-basement price of US$3750. I take PayPal.
"Always be guilty of a lesser crime."
I can accept that a lot of people won't RTFA, but is it too much trouble to RTF summary?
But, assuming you leave the light on 24 hours a day and figuring $0.10/kWh for a bulb using 9 W instead of 40 W, it will pay itself off in under 3 years!
Of course, if you're one of those people that don't leave their lights on all day and night, YMMV.
Maybe I'm confused.
P(Getting hit by car) * P(Dying from a car impact) > P(Getting shot) * P(Dying from a gunshot wound)
Now, even though the odds of dying after being struck by a plane are probably pretty high, the chances of being hit by one are pretty low. I could err by a few feet while walking down the sidewalk and get creamed by a car, but I'd have to really go out of my way to get hit by a plane. Gun shots fall somewhere in between.
Now, all that GP pointed out was:
P(Dying from a car impact) > P(Dying from a gunshot wound)
And that of course is incomplete and can't be extended to planes, etc. But I suspect that he thought we'd use a little common sense.
Story: Public domain
Likenesses created by Disney: Disney's
Yes, for right or wrong, Disney will demand compensation for everything that they legally can. But their lawyers are very good and know where the lines are.
The basic problem with the revision you've suggested is that it lacks the clarification present in the original statement regarding the subject's target. In the original statement, "people here" are proving their superiority to "everyone else on
Let me know if you need any more help, I'm ever so smart.
I understand that MADD is all about drunk driving, but is that really the most disturbing thing that the player is allowed to do in the game? I've played a couple of the previous installments and while playing, I have beaten/run down innocent pedestrians, killed cops, intentionally rammed random cars with my stolen fire truck, set fire to little old ladies, etc. Is DWI really worse than any of those?
As a side note, doing all of those things in the game has only lead me to try a couple of them in real life. So I can personally debunk the myth that game violence leads to real-world violence. I mean, who among you can claim that you've never run down pedestrians in a stolen fire truck?
In this case, I believe that it's just legacy. CRTs were (are) sniffable and the old-school coax lines certainly had EMF concerns. The switch was made from coax to fiber and they kept the proximity rules the same.
Now classified fiber had to abide by an 18" standoff from unclassified lines to avoid EMF leakage...
Compressing an element with a 100-million-year+ half life enough to achieve critical mass would take an implosion that would dwarf the yield of the nuclear material and may, as you say, "crack the planet in half". Definitely not cigarette-pack size, though - Think small moon. Would be a dream challenge for an explosives engineer, though.
U-235 is the sweet stuff - Naturally occurring and you only need to refine it to about 90%. Definitely the gun-weapon material of choice.
How terribly sad. Thanks, George Bush. But, IIRC, George promised us that we'd be putting a man on Mars. Just like his exit strategy, he has a solid plan - He's just waiting on his last day in office to surprise us with it. Have a little faith.
Internet access gets faster -> Web sites get bigger ...
Hard drives get bigger -> Applications use more space
Media storage increases -> Home videos get larger and quality improves
CPUs get faster -> Windows programmers add "features" and chow down on cycles
Fish bowls get larger -> Goldfish grow
Some good, some bad, some ugly. But not shocking.