Resistance to UV is only useful if you leave your discs out on your desk in the daytime. Come that point, though, i'd be more worried about coffe-rings after you mistake your archive for a coaster.
You can't clone Elvis' passport; They didn't have access to the original.
They created a passport with fake details which matched the identity of another person. Nothing was cloned. I bet it wasn't even his passport picture, but a stock photo from the web.
That's roughly 2 people a day at many large airports. Now, since 11th September 2001, I've only known of two terrorists attempting to attack an airport. I believe they set themselves on fire by mistake, and a Glaswegian kicked the shit out of him while attempting to put him out.
3) If they're calibrating it to pick up on "acting suspicious" instead of being actually nervous, stressed, or hostile, then it's effing useless for picking up on real terrorists...
So, how do they get genuine data? Scan everybody and then save the profile from the guy who blew up the airport?
I proved this point in a self defence class at a local Youth Centre I volunteered at (briefly!)
The self defense instructor was teaching the kids (14-16 age group) how to defend against a male attacker, coming from behind, who grabs your hair right on top of your crown. Little specific, don't you think?
Anyway, the guy demonstrates by telling me to place my hand on top of his head, arm outstretched fully, and grab his hair. He pushes down on my fist with his two hands and turns 180 degrees so my wrist is inverted and pressed against his head. Well done, i'm in a wrist lock.
I say "Ok, that's wonderful. Would anyone else care to try?" A young lady steps up who I know quite well, and I say to the kids "This guy's talking out of his ass. I'll show you why. Katie[nothername], do the same as he just did. I'm going to come at you like a real attacker would, but i'll try not to hurt you." She agrees.
Oddly, it's quite difficult to get a wrist lock on a guy who's grabbed your ponytail, dragged you backwards onto the floor, and is mock elbowing you in the face.
Totally offtopic, but a good indication of how great these 'self defence' classes are.
See my original post. Your "stomping of puppies" clause wouldn't get through, just as my "euthenasia of terminally ill patients" clause wouldn't, even though my clause would BENEFIT society by reducing costs to the health services, in money and bed space, and also by reducing the spread of congenital terminal disorders!
I know it's not very 'humanistic' of me, but hey, since when did government care about humanity?
You've taken my hypothetical situation literally. This was not the idea.
My point is that if you disagree with something strongly enough to vote against it every time the issue is raised, then "how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it? Voting for the bill in whole is exactly the same as voting for its constituent parts seperately."
Obama should have voted "Nay", and waited for it to be removed. All he's done is whinge for a while, then caved in and preached about the "lesser of two evils" or some rubbish.
Retroactive immunity should not exist, and he shouldn't have voted for it in any incarnation. End of.
You can't go voting for a bill which contains all of the things you were just voting AGAINST, and it's idiotic to think that there is any reason to believe this would ever be acceptable!
Here's a hypothetical situation for you; I draft a bill to reduce the criminal sentences for minor drug offences to fines (hefty fines, but still no prison time), and to revoke all patents on proven life-saving chemicals currently patented by multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies, but I include a clause which brings new legislation which states that terminally ill patients are not entitled to medical care of any kind, as it is quite simply a waste of resources.
If you're against the last statement, how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it? Voting for the bill in whole is exactly the same as voting for its constituent parts seperately. He should have voted against it until the parts he disagreed with were removed, and he's a coward for not sticking to his principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Resistance to UV is only useful if you leave your discs out on your desk in the daytime. Come that point, though, i'd be more worried about coffe-rings after you mistake your archive for a coaster.
We already have radio control for the mass flocks of humans, coupled with buzzing bee sounds, 'singing', and harshly spoken orders.
I take it you've never watched Thoth on 'America's Got Talent'?
This is EXACTLY why people are sending them back.
Command line: Bash / xterm / konsole
Browser: Firefox / Konqueror
Image manipulation: GIMP, ffs!
Seriously... Do you expect some 45 year old Christian mum of three to click on a program called GIMP?
Epic, EPIC win.
Give the guy a break! The first result in a Google Image Search reveals this guy.
EPIC fail. *weep*
(Offtopic)
All the others contained references to dehydrated breast fluids.
You can't clone Elvis' passport; They didn't have access to the original.
They created a passport with fake details which matched the identity of another person. Nothing was cloned. I bet it wasn't even his passport picture, but a stock photo from the web.
That is an awesome signature... Would have made my GCSE electronics a lot easier.
I can't wait for game developers and the MAFIAA to get hold of this.
A whole version of Windows DESIGNED to allow the use of one application by many people, in many locations.
You make a compelling arguement, guys!
Bittorrent is a peer to peer distributed file transfer protocol, not a game download service.
Stop listening to the MAFIAA.
There's a Linux Steam client?!
Subscriber Agreement < First Sale Rights.
If it's as high as 0.01% it will be unworkable.
That's roughly 2 people a day at many large airports. Now, since 11th September 2001, I've only known of two terrorists attempting to attack an airport. I believe they set themselves on fire by mistake, and a Glaswegian kicked the shit out of him while attempting to put him out.
3) If they're calibrating it to pick up on "acting suspicious" instead of being actually nervous, stressed, or hostile, then it's effing useless for picking up on real terrorists...
So, how do they get genuine data? Scan everybody and then save the profile from the guy who blew up the airport?
I proved this point in a self defence class at a local Youth Centre I volunteered at (briefly!)
The self defense instructor was teaching the kids (14-16 age group) how to defend against a male attacker, coming from behind, who grabs your hair right on top of your crown. Little specific, don't you think?
Anyway, the guy demonstrates by telling me to place my hand on top of his head, arm outstretched fully, and grab his hair. He pushes down on my fist with his two hands and turns 180 degrees so my wrist is inverted and pressed against his head. Well done, i'm in a wrist lock.
I say "Ok, that's wonderful. Would anyone else care to try?" A young lady steps up who I know quite well, and I say to the kids "This guy's talking out of his ass. I'll show you why. Katie[nothername], do the same as he just did. I'm going to come at you like a real attacker would, but i'll try not to hurt you." She agrees.
Oddly, it's quite difficult to get a wrist lock on a guy who's grabbed your ponytail, dragged you backwards onto the floor, and is mock elbowing you in the face.
Totally offtopic, but a good indication of how great these 'self defence' classes are.
According to Amazon, nobody is.
See my original post. Your "stomping of puppies" clause wouldn't get through, just as my "euthenasia of terminally ill patients" clause wouldn't, even though my clause would BENEFIT society by reducing costs to the health services, in money and bed space, and also by reducing the spread of congenital terminal disorders!
I know it's not very 'humanistic' of me, but hey, since when did government care about humanity?
The 'lesser of two evils' approach again.
Where is the line crossed, though? When do we stop these people from using this "poison pill" approach? When did it even become acceptable?
Why do we accept this? I say invite deadlock and prevent progress; At least things won't get any worse.
You've taken my hypothetical situation literally. This was not the idea.
My point is that if you disagree with something strongly enough to vote against it every time the issue is raised, then "how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it? Voting for the bill in whole is exactly the same as voting for its constituent parts seperately."
Obama should have voted "Nay", and waited for it to be removed. All he's done is whinge for a while, then caved in and preached about the "lesser of two evils" or some rubbish.
Retroactive immunity should not exist, and he shouldn't have voted for it in any incarnation. End of.
Troll? Someone hit this Mod with a clue-stick and mod me Off-Topic.
WMA?
No, WMP needs to support FLAC. Or, people need to stop using the bundled player and use what THEY want instead of what the corps. want them to use.
Isn't this how we got into this situation in the first place? Vendor lockin and loack of choice through market dominance?
Parent = Insightful.
You can't go voting for a bill which contains all of the things you were just voting AGAINST, and it's idiotic to think that there is any reason to believe this would ever be acceptable!
Here's a hypothetical situation for you; I draft a bill to reduce the criminal sentences for minor drug offences to fines (hefty fines, but still no prison time), and to revoke all patents on proven life-saving chemicals currently patented by multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies, but I include a clause which brings new legislation which states that terminally ill patients are not entitled to medical care of any kind, as it is quite simply a waste of resources.
If you're against the last statement, how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it? Voting for the bill in whole is exactly the same as voting for its constituent parts seperately. He should have voted against it until the parts he disagreed with were removed, and he's a coward for not sticking to his principles.