Cars move people and supplies around much more quickly than anything else we have. The fact that you can use cars, knives, and razors in a dangerous manner doesn't negate the fact that the average person still has good reasons to use them.
Handguns and assualt rifles, on the other hand, are mainly designed to kill people, and it'd be foolish to completely ignore this fact, no matter how legitimate or legal their use is. Does that make it bad? Not yet, but are plenty of reasons one might consider regulating their use.
P2P is useful to maximize bandwidth usage when distributing a file. But it also happens to be very well suited for bypassing a music industry that is trying to price-gouge us to death. Gun control is a very different animal than P2P technology and not all techs are neutral.
Shooting down a drone is not the same as shooting down a fighter jet. There's no need to rush F-22 production to the extent that you get that many failures because you don't need to produce that many planes.
People only marry because we haven't developed the technology to merge conciousnesses, bodies, and property with our loved one(s). While laying off our subsequently extraneous appendages.
You can change the constitution without using the Living Constitution argument, which is basically to try re-interpret the constitution for modern times.
....and those people are all divorced? I would guess you're more likely to be divorced if you can't brand-hate a single company to support your spouse even if you think it's for an air-headed reason.
Honestly, if what Amazon did is enough reason to NOT buy their products, then you probably shouldn't be using any Apple, Microsoft, Cicso, Yahoo, IBM, or RIM (Blackberries) products. Their violations of people's rights go far beyond taking away a book you bought. Good luck keeping up a ban on those products in your house.
Why do you need a decoy? Do you hate your windows that much? Keeping the laptop hidden under the seat under your black cloth should be more than enough.
They control the towers. What on earth do vans do that the towers don't? And wouldn't they be testing PHONES inside the vans? Not setting up temporary towers? I don't know the details, but that just seems more likely.
I'd disagree. It's harder to take a break for Magic or the PS3 online. I've had good internet access and friends to game with for a while now and I still love a good LAN party.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the linked article seems to suggest that the problem has been that no one else has tried to replicate the experiment until now.
I don't think you actually explained anything he was bringing up.
His point is that, yes, that is supposedly what the ETF is for -- paying off the phone because there was an extra surcharge built into the contract that is supposed to be equal to the subsidy AT&T is giving me for the phone. If I'm on the contract for 2 years, then I basically bought the phone, so that surcharge should go away. Similiarly, if I join the plan with a phone I already own, there should be no ETF. That is not the case though. ETFs tend to be viewed as another source of profit rather than as a way to offset the cost of the phone.
Java doesn't deserve a break. It is still riddled with security holes, so if you don't need it for browsing, you're much better off without it. This goes double for corporate environments.
Once you feel bad about a site, doesn't that mean you've visited it already? At that point you've already loaded any exploit scripts there may be on the page.
A much less selfish solution would be NoScript. You are effectively using the same resources as 5-10 people for everything from bandwidth the server requests. I don't see why you think using more of your ISP and Facebook's resources is giving malicious script writers a "kick."
Almost all web browsers are going to mention Mozilla. This is a holdover from the days when Netscape was king. It's sort of a way for a browser to say, "throw anything at me that Netscape can parse, and I can handle it."
I feel like the reason this hasn't been done is that it is just a dick move with no benefit for the people who do it. Nothing prevents other countries from collecting the data, but it's not like any other nation believes that sending rogue instructions to them is in any way beneficial to them.
It would basically be just vandalism. Vandalism on the farthest man-made devices from the Earth.
The problem with that sort of thinking is that we as humans are really good at seeing patterns, so we look for them in any data we have. This is the danger with making a hypothesis after seeing the data. After all, his argument could apply to any set of numbers, and at no point does he state the assumptions you make in your post.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that can depend on the technology.
Cars move people and supplies around much more quickly than anything else we have. The fact that you can use cars, knives, and razors in a dangerous manner doesn't negate the fact that the average person still has good reasons to use them.
Handguns and assualt rifles, on the other hand, are mainly designed to kill people, and it'd be foolish to completely ignore this fact, no matter how legitimate or legal their use is. Does that make it bad? Not yet, but are plenty of reasons one might consider regulating their use.
P2P is useful to maximize bandwidth usage when distributing a file. But it also happens to be very well suited for bypassing a music industry that is trying to price-gouge us to death. Gun control is a very different animal than P2P technology and not all techs are neutral.
Maybe you've heard of two little things called Skynet and the machine uprising?
Shooting down a drone is not the same as shooting down a fighter jet. There's no need to rush F-22 production to the extent that you get that many failures because you don't need to produce that many planes.
People only marry because we haven't developed the technology to merge conciousnesses, bodies, and property with our loved one(s). While laying off our subsequently extraneous appendages.
You can change the constitution without using the Living Constitution argument, which is basically to try re-interpret the constitution for modern times.
....and those people are all divorced? I would guess you're more likely to be divorced if you can't brand-hate a single company to support your spouse even if you think it's for an air-headed reason.
What are the advantages of mini-Discs?
Still not Sony.
Honestly, if what Amazon did is enough reason to NOT buy their products, then you probably shouldn't be using any Apple, Microsoft, Cicso, Yahoo, IBM, or RIM (Blackberries) products. Their violations of people's rights go far beyond taking away a book you bought. Good luck keeping up a ban on those products in your house.
Why do you need a decoy? Do you hate your windows that much? Keeping the laptop hidden under the seat under your black cloth should be more than enough.
They control the towers. What on earth do vans do that the towers don't? And wouldn't they be testing PHONES inside the vans? Not setting up temporary towers? I don't know the details, but that just seems more likely.
I'd disagree. It's harder to take a break for Magic or the PS3 online. I've had good internet access and friends to game with for a while now and I still love a good LAN party.
Are you there to game or to leech bandwidth? And hopefully you mean a port; I doubt you need a whole switch to yourself.
It seems like someone is trying to do exactly that:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/02/9168255-arsenic-life-debate-still-percolates
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the linked article seems to suggest that the problem has been that no one else has tried to replicate the experiment until now.
Oh get off your high horse. All but one of those questions above are technical questions to get more details on the OP's needs.
I don't think you actually explained anything he was bringing up.
His point is that, yes, that is supposedly what the ETF is for -- paying off the phone because there was an extra surcharge built into the contract that is supposed to be equal to the subsidy AT&T is giving me for the phone. If I'm on the contract for 2 years, then I basically bought the phone, so that surcharge should go away. Similiarly, if I join the plan with a phone I already own, there should be no ETF. That is not the case though. ETFs tend to be viewed as another source of profit rather than as a way to offset the cost of the phone.
Oh shucks, you crazy tinfoil hatter, you. No one is spying on you. Now go back to using the internets some more.
Java doesn't deserve a break. It is still riddled with security holes, so if you don't need it for browsing, you're much better off without it. This goes double for corporate environments.
Once you feel bad about a site, doesn't that mean you've visited it already? At that point you've already loaded any exploit scripts there may be on the page.
A much less selfish solution would be NoScript. You are effectively using the same resources as 5-10 people for everything from bandwidth the server requests. I don't see why you think using more of your ISP and Facebook's resources is giving malicious script writers a "kick."
Are you accounting for leap seconds and the like? After all, there will be quite a few of them.
Almost all web browsers are going to mention Mozilla. This is a holdover from the days when Netscape was king. It's sort of a way for a browser to say, "throw anything at me that Netscape can parse, and I can handle it."
Even Internet explorer uses the Mozilla string.
http://www.useragentstring.com/pages/Internet%20Explorer/
The line you pasted was specifically Chrome.
I feel like the reason this hasn't been done is that it is just a dick move with no benefit for the people who do it. Nothing prevents other countries from collecting the data, but it's not like any other nation believes that sending rogue instructions to them is in any way beneficial to them.
It would basically be just vandalism. Vandalism on the farthest man-made devices from the Earth.
In the version of excel I had to use in high school, the flight simulator they had wasn't very good.
The problem with that sort of thinking is that we as humans are really good at seeing patterns, so we look for them in any data we have. This is the danger with making a hypothesis after seeing the data. After all, his argument could apply to any set of numbers, and at no point does he state the assumptions you make in your post.
You have to be trolling. There is no way you believe that you can prove two numbers are non-random.