They call it one super colony because closely related ants move freely between the smaller colonies, but each queen is genetically distinct. Genetic drift should affect them the same as any other species of ant.
You have to point the laser at the Apollo landing sites specifically. That means "something" is exactly where NASA says it is, which is all these new pictures will show up, so congrats on finding the excuse they'll use to deny this.
We've had proof for a long time. The nutjobs just don't want to believe it. For one thing, they left reflectors on the moon that can bounce back laser signals. Mythbusters even did it.
I'm sure the nutjobs will find some excuse not to believe this too.
Yeah and how many Firefox users run Microsoft software?
It's just not realistic to worry about this guy bundling a trojan or anything like that. You might as well worry about Ubuntu's repositories getting hacked.
From what I hear, he only "apologized" and fixed the problem for several reasons:...
So what if he only fixed it because of public pressure? He fixed it, right? The public pressure is going to be around for as long as people use it, right? At least he's being held accountable to the users.
If the idea of general education classes is that every student should have some familiarity with a breadth of fields before they graduate, I think understanding basic calculus is a reasonable minimum expectation at the university level.
For simplicity's sake, let's imagine that Cell Phones are the only source of EM radiation. Say a cellphone gets half of its energy from harvested signals. Where did those signals come from? Other Cellphones. Every Watt that is harvested to power the current cellphone came off of the signal of another cellphone nearby.
If cell phones are the only source of radiation, you're talking about walkie-talkies, not cell phones. The energy comes from the tower. Most of it normally gets absorbed uselessly by rocks, trees, buildings, etc. If you were using your cell phone in the line of sight between someone else using a cell phone and the tower, you could degrade their signal. Other than that, you're likely just sucking up energy that would otherwise be converted to heat when the EM wave hits some stationary object.
Me neither. But we already have laws against the real act.
So it's not safe, but let's do it anyway? No. The laws against the real act are all we need.
The right to fantasize, daydream, and drool over violating people and committing crimes? I'm pretty sure I missed that right when reading the constitution.
The part you missed would be the 10th amendment. The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights.
Anyways, the point you're missing is that regardless of how insignificant and easily trumped you think the right to fantasize is, your "worries" are even more insignificant such that the very least of all rights ought to trump them.
Prove it. I'm sure it's possible to find 12 year olds that are having sex. Offer them money to record motion capture info, and you're set.
If it isn't harmful, there's no reason to ban it. However, I think most people would disagree with you and say that recording 12-year-olds having sex almost always involves harming them in some way.
I don't think it's safe to let people indulge in... certain fantasies. I couldn't give a crap about a game where you have sex - it's the age thing that worries me.
I don't think it's safe to put any person or group of people in charge of deciding which fantasies are permissible. Your worries are not a sufficient reason to constrain the rights of others. Focus on actual abuse instead, not just things that remind you of abuse.
Comcast et. al. don't give a rat's ass if your machine is spyware infested or not.
Which would tend to belie the assertion that spyware is such a horrible problem for the network that it necessitates running these clean access programs that are essentially spyware in themselves.
Providing an external ISP access to every room on a campus is prohibitively expensive, not to mention entirely at the mercy of an external entity to the Uni.
Not every room on campus, just the dorms. The owners of large apartment buildings seem to manage this relationship just fine, even in college towns where kids move frequently.
The thing with extern ISPs is that if someone defaults on the line, they won't write it off. They'll expect payment for reconnection. As it's on Uni property, they'll expect the Uni to stump up. Begin to see where this is getting a little more complicated?
I really doubt that's the case. They can expect payment all they want, but the university is not a party to their contract with the student. Again, apartment owners deal with this all the time, so I assume there are some standard practices already in place.
If you were put in that kind of position, I get the sneaky suspicion you'd learn a hell of a lot of things you're not currently privy to, and knowing all the facts and constraints, you'd end up making a similar kind of decision.
Oh, I'm sure I'd learn all about the political bullshit that went into the decision. And given the inevitable resistance to change, I might find that fighting the status quo is not worth the grief.
Well, except for the 12 year old they used for "realistic motion capture". They didn't, but if they had (which is not really that far fetched for a Japanese game) would it still be "no big deal"?
No, of course not. It'd be a very big deal because someone was actually harmed. You don't prosecute the makers of horror movies on the chance that they may have tortured someone, especially not when you acknowledge that they didn't actually torture anyone.
When they keep out the commercial ISPs so they're the only network available and when their classes require network access, I'm a little less concerned about their rights to their network. If they're going to force you to eat their dog food, they at least have to make it palatable.
I don't know why universities bother providing network access if it's sooo hard to maintain. Comcast, AT&T, etc. handle the off-campus students just fine without any of that crap. It's not like their job is any easier or their customers are any smarter.
If I were running the network at a university, I'd leave the dorms to the commercial providers and let them compete for business. In the labs have the students use university PCs which are locked down as needed. For wireless, you offer a "clean" network that requires CCA or whatever and a guest network that is on the other side of the firewall and throttled.
If I understand things, having them edit from home would make things easier. One of the issues is that they're trying to ensure that one account corresponds to exactly one user and one user corresponds to exactly one account. The accusation is that Scientologists are creating sockpuppets and sharing accounts. If they have to edit from home, that sort of behavior should be easier to detect and ban when it happens.
OK, so why do you think it is derived from Linux? I haven't heard anything suggesting it was. Typically, closed-source drivers avoid issues with the GPL by not linking to the kernel and running in userspace like any other application. It's no different than a desktop distro shipping nVidia's binary-only video drivers.
The complaint doesn't say anything about any drivers. Like I said, it only covers the GNU tools distributed by Linksys that the FSF owns the copyright to.
There was an issue about a version of GCC with modifications for Broadcom's bcm4710 chipset. I don't know if that was covered in this settlement (the complaint does mention GCC), but those changes wouldn't be a part of the driver itself.
Linksys always intended to release the code. By and large, they already have. If you follow all the way to the original complaint, it's all about modified GNU tools, not any core router components that Linksys might want to keep secret. Also, they usually would release the source, only they made a lot of mistakes in the process. They'd release the source late, release the wrong version of the source, or forget to include all the necessary tools to build the source, etc.
Even though in most cases Linksys did eventually come into compliance with the GPL, the FSF got tired of having to hold Linksys' feet to the fire. Now the idea is that Linksys will have an internal watchdog instead who will ensure that releases are compliant with the GPL the first time around.
Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions.
Might as well go the extra mile and get a whole laptop from Craigslist. Then you have no worries about tracing MAC addresses or anything like that. Pay cash and don't give them any contact info that could be traced back to you. If you get the vibe that the laptop is stolen, all the better. Then, yank the hard drive altogether and boot from a LiveCD. Never use it for any other purpose than to upload the document. Dispose of it in tiny pieces in different locations.
It's pretty safe to assume that if a site has ads, they want you to see the ads. Every ad provider that knows about the tag will require its use on every site that uses their ads. They might as well just make it a one-time option to enable ads on sites you visit frequently.
Also, if people really care about encouraging "acceptable" ads, they should create a new subscription list that only bans the obnoxious ones. Then maybe you could use the strict list on one-off visits and the "acceptable" list for sites you visit regularly.
I just think it's silly to believe that stiff penalties alone are going to prevent the intrusion attempts that anyone running any sort of server already accepts as inevitable.
Well of course it's silly. Who do you think actually believes that? It's about as silly as saying you should focus exclusively on defensive systems and just letting the enemy attack you at their leisure while they build up their systems with no fear of counterattacks.
you were never meant to look/feel/act in your forties (and beyond) as you did in your teens and twenties.
We were never "meant" to receive organ transplants either. The entire field of medicine is basically devoted to opposing to the natural course of life. Hell, most of human history is devoted to that goal.
Eventually, we're going to figure out how to forestall aging and death indefinitely. I don't expect that will happen soon enough for me, but if it does, I'll be the first in line. You'll be free to die happy, secure in the knowledge that you lived only as you were meant to (in front of a computer screen).
Slashdot Mirror
They call it one super colony because closely related ants move freely between the smaller colonies, but each queen is genetically distinct. Genetic drift should affect them the same as any other species of ant.
The rovers are in the wrong spot. You have to point the laser at the Apollo landing sites specifically.
See also Wikipedia's article on independent evidence of the Moon landings.
You have to point the laser at the Apollo landing sites specifically. That means "something" is exactly where NASA says it is, which is all these new pictures will show up, so congrats on finding the excuse they'll use to deny this.
Anyways, Wikipedia has a whole article on independent evidence for the Moon landings, including Russian and independent radio operators monitoring mission communications.
a communist country in Asia
C'mon, there's like three and one of them is North Korea. Why not say which one?
We've had proof for a long time. The nutjobs just don't want to believe it. For one thing, they left reflectors on the moon that can bounce back laser signals. Mythbusters even did it.
I'm sure the nutjobs will find some excuse not to believe this too.
Yeah and how many Firefox users run Microsoft software?
It's just not realistic to worry about this guy bundling a trojan or anything like that. You might as well worry about Ubuntu's repositories getting hacked.
From what I hear, he only "apologized" and fixed the problem for several reasons: ...
So what if he only fixed it because of public pressure? He fixed it, right? The public pressure is going to be around for as long as people use it, right? At least he's being held accountable to the users.
If the idea of general education classes is that every student should have some familiarity with a breadth of fields before they graduate, I think understanding basic calculus is a reasonable minimum expectation at the university level.
Question: Are there any stars that would be candidates for life close enough to it that they would be in danger?
So exactly how would they kill you? Would it burn you or cook you or make you sick or what?
For simplicity's sake, let's imagine that Cell Phones are the only source of EM radiation. Say a cellphone gets half of its energy from harvested signals. Where did those signals come from? Other Cellphones. Every Watt that is harvested to power the current cellphone came off of the signal of another cellphone nearby.
If cell phones are the only source of radiation, you're talking about walkie-talkies, not cell phones. The energy comes from the tower. Most of it normally gets absorbed uselessly by rocks, trees, buildings, etc. If you were using your cell phone in the line of sight between someone else using a cell phone and the tower, you could degrade their signal. Other than that, you're likely just sucking up energy that would otherwise be converted to heat when the EM wave hits some stationary object.
Me neither. But we already have laws against the real act.
So it's not safe, but let's do it anyway? No. The laws against the real act are all we need.
The right to fantasize, daydream, and drool over violating people and committing crimes? I'm pretty sure I missed that right when reading the constitution.
The part you missed would be the 10th amendment. The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights.
Anyways, the point you're missing is that regardless of how insignificant and easily trumped you think the right to fantasize is, your "worries" are even more insignificant such that the very least of all rights ought to trump them.
Prove it. I'm sure it's possible to find 12 year olds that are having sex. Offer them money to record motion capture info, and you're set.
If it isn't harmful, there's no reason to ban it. However, I think most people would disagree with you and say that recording 12-year-olds having sex almost always involves harming them in some way.
I don't think it's safe to let people indulge in... certain fantasies. I couldn't give a crap about a game where you have sex - it's the age thing that worries me.
I don't think it's safe to put any person or group of people in charge of deciding which fantasies are permissible. Your worries are not a sufficient reason to constrain the rights of others. Focus on actual abuse instead, not just things that remind you of abuse.
Comcast et. al. don't give a rat's ass if your machine is spyware infested or not.
Which would tend to belie the assertion that spyware is such a horrible problem for the network that it necessitates running these clean access programs that are essentially spyware in themselves.
Providing an external ISP access to every room on a campus is prohibitively expensive, not to mention entirely at the mercy of an external entity to the Uni.
Not every room on campus, just the dorms. The owners of large apartment buildings seem to manage this relationship just fine, even in college towns where kids move frequently.
The thing with extern ISPs is that if someone defaults on the line, they won't write it off. They'll expect payment for reconnection. As it's on Uni property, they'll expect the Uni to stump up. Begin to see where this is getting a little more complicated?
I really doubt that's the case. They can expect payment all they want, but the university is not a party to their contract with the student. Again, apartment owners deal with this all the time, so I assume there are some standard practices already in place.
If you were put in that kind of position, I get the sneaky suspicion you'd learn a hell of a lot of things you're not currently privy to, and knowing all the facts and constraints, you'd end up making a similar kind of decision.
Oh, I'm sure I'd learn all about the political bullshit that went into the decision. And given the inevitable resistance to change, I might find that fighting the status quo is not worth the grief.
Well, except for the 12 year old they used for "realistic motion capture". They didn't, but if they had (which is not really that far fetched for a Japanese game) would it still be "no big deal"?
No, of course not. It'd be a very big deal because someone was actually harmed. You don't prosecute the makers of horror movies on the chance that they may have tortured someone, especially not when you acknowledge that they didn't actually torture anyone.
When they keep out the commercial ISPs so they're the only network available and when their classes require network access, I'm a little less concerned about their rights to their network. If they're going to force you to eat their dog food, they at least have to make it palatable.
I don't know why universities bother providing network access if it's sooo hard to maintain. Comcast, AT&T, etc. handle the off-campus students just fine without any of that crap. It's not like their job is any easier or their customers are any smarter.
If I were running the network at a university, I'd leave the dorms to the commercial providers and let them compete for business. In the labs have the students use university PCs which are locked down as needed. For wireless, you offer a "clean" network that requires CCA or whatever and a guest network that is on the other side of the firewall and throttled.
If I understand things, having them edit from home would make things easier. One of the issues is that they're trying to ensure that one account corresponds to exactly one user and one user corresponds to exactly one account. The accusation is that Scientologists are creating sockpuppets and sharing accounts. If they have to edit from home, that sort of behavior should be easier to detect and ban when it happens.
OK, so why do you think it is derived from Linux? I haven't heard anything suggesting it was. Typically, closed-source drivers avoid issues with the GPL by not linking to the kernel and running in userspace like any other application. It's no different than a desktop distro shipping nVidia's binary-only video drivers.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Distributing a binary-only driver is not necessarily a violation of the GPL.
The complaint doesn't say anything about any drivers. Like I said, it only covers the GNU tools distributed by Linksys that the FSF owns the copyright to.
There was an issue about a version of GCC with modifications for Broadcom's bcm4710 chipset. I don't know if that was covered in this settlement (the complaint does mention GCC), but those changes wouldn't be a part of the driver itself.
Linksys always intended to release the code. By and large, they already have. If you follow all the way to the original complaint, it's all about modified GNU tools, not any core router components that Linksys might want to keep secret. Also, they usually would release the source, only they made a lot of mistakes in the process. They'd release the source late, release the wrong version of the source, or forget to include all the necessary tools to build the source, etc.
Even though in most cases Linksys did eventually come into compliance with the GPL, the FSF got tired of having to hold Linksys' feet to the fire. Now the idea is that Linksys will have an internal watchdog instead who will ensure that releases are compliant with the GPL the first time around.
Depending on how important/inflammable this document is, I might look into buying a cheap 20GB laptop hard drive, installing ubuntu, going to a star bucks, doing the above and then "disposing" of the drive and all media so that there are no questions.
Might as well go the extra mile and get a whole laptop from Craigslist. Then you have no worries about tracing MAC addresses or anything like that. Pay cash and don't give them any contact info that could be traced back to you. If you get the vibe that the laptop is stolen, all the better. Then, yank the hard drive altogether and boot from a LiveCD. Never use it for any other purpose than to upload the document. Dispose of it in tiny pieces in different locations.
It's pretty safe to assume that if a site has ads, they want you to see the ads. Every ad provider that knows about the tag will require its use on every site that uses their ads. They might as well just make it a one-time option to enable ads on sites you visit frequently.
Also, if people really care about encouraging "acceptable" ads, they should create a new subscription list that only bans the obnoxious ones. Then maybe you could use the strict list on one-off visits and the "acceptable" list for sites you visit regularly.
I just think it's silly to believe that stiff penalties alone are going to prevent the intrusion attempts that anyone running any sort of server already accepts as inevitable.
Well of course it's silly. Who do you think actually believes that? It's about as silly as saying you should focus exclusively on defensive systems and just letting the enemy attack you at their leisure while they build up their systems with no fear of counterattacks.
you were never meant to look/feel/act in your forties (and beyond) as you did in your teens and twenties.
We were never "meant" to receive organ transplants either. The entire field of medicine is basically devoted to opposing to the natural course of life. Hell, most of human history is devoted to that goal.
Eventually, we're going to figure out how to forestall aging and death indefinitely. I don't expect that will happen soon enough for me, but if it does, I'll be the first in line. You'll be free to die happy, secure in the knowledge that you lived only as you were meant to (in front of a computer screen).