No, very weak is "hjdmib". He a bit more than doubled the characters that needed to be searched. Obviously, throwing a few symbols in there would be nice, and even better would be some bytes outside of the domain of ASCII, but hey, you can't have it all.
Though really, why not use "H3y Jud3, d0n't m4k3 11 b4d"? It has almost all of that, plus a good length.
There is no violation of freedom of speech if a theater decides to turn all of its patrons' cell phones off, or some equivalent. Cell phone jammers already exist, if I recall, and cell phone detectors do as well. In any case, it's not a violation of freedom of speech, since a theater or restaurant is not the government.
Personally, I don't see much wrong with a theater or something making sure all cell-phones are turned off or otherwise non-functional inside the building. If you don't like it, you can go to a theater without such measures. In the meantime, everybody who wants a cell phone-free night, and is okay with "cell phone-free" including them, can go to that one that advertises that cell phones are banned.
There is, of course, a difference between turning off / jamming all cell phones in your private property, and doing so on public property, or somebody else's property. Since the technology already exists (one could make your theater a gigantic faraday cage, or use a cell-phone jammer), and there haven't been any serious mis-uses that I've heard of, I don't think the particular idea of blocking cell phone signals is one that will give people reason to abuse the technology. It's also certainly possible that the idea just isn't appealing to theaters, although I do know that every theater I've been in has asked everybody to turn their cell phones off. I've never actually been in a theater with somebody talking on their phone. Maybe people have enough decency down here.
By the way, looked up cell phone jammers, it seems that jammers are quite illegal in the US, but Italy, for example, allows theaters to use them for exactly this purpose.
No, this whole case would hinge on the defense's expert testimony, the DA's experts who agreed with that testimony after two forensic investigations, and the DA that dropped the case because he agreed with the three experts. Or so says TFA.
You say that Windows going in an entirely new direction is a bad thing, yes? And you say, hey, look at apple, they don't change too much too fast like MS is trying to do! Well, look back a few years, and you'll notice that Mac OSX shares almost nothing with Mac OS9. Look a bit more recently, and you'll also find that Macs shifted processors entirely. Personally, I wish MS would do something more like Mac then-- switch to something UNIX. But if they don't, hey, Vista is a much smaller change from XP than OSX was to OS9. I wouldn't go championing Macs as the bastion of small-upgrades (although they did exceedingly well at maintaining backwards compatibility through various measures).
Easy counter-example would be any new CPU architecture, which is generally adopted by Linux faster than the competition (especially Windows, which is probably what you're comparing Linux to, given the context). AMD64 (and Itanium 2, for that matter) is an example. While Linux can be slow to get support for some things, that's certainly not true for all cool new hardware. What about the PS3? Pandora? Heck, some cool hardware Linux supports would be impossible for a great deal of other OSes, especially Windows (especially if I mean Anything/Linux, and not GNU/Linux).
You have lost 250 experience for "ignorance".
You have gone down a level. You are now level 0.
You have 0/0 HP. ZeroDivisionError. Insert quarter for more HP.
Eh, the 72 virgin thing was a Muslim, not Arab, thing. Though, of course, arabs are your stereotypical Muslims (unfortunately). The 72 is not an exact figure (as is usually referred to)-- Arabia seems to have a tradition of saying numbers, but mean "a lot"-- as an example, A Thousand Nights and a Night (A thousand and one Arabian nights). 72 virgins link. Anyway, it's not really a big deal, in my opinion, and it really does piss off the victims of the negative comments.
It's not a bamboozle! The ruskies are indeed trying to steal my essence. God damned ruskies. Don't give me this bull about how all that is bull, you've obviously been enemy-indoctrinated.
How do you measure something like how well things are documented with a percentage? Some code simply doesn't need documentation. Other code needs plenty. Is 0% a 1:1 relationship between lines of code and lines of comments? That whole thing seems a bit strange. They could certainly back it up if they wanted to, but that'd be too much effort.
Should I assume that those statistics are made up for the humor/rhetoric, since no web crawler has visited past 20% of the estimated size of the web, and P2P networks in general are impossible to know the full scope of (at the least without crawling all of the web)-- and some, specially designed ones, are even designed to make it impossible to know estimates of proportions of content on them?
No, but your intelligence should tell you that it doesn't take a citizen to know politics.
You really sound to me like someone who doesn't even live in the country trying to tell me how it works.
I have lived in the United States Virgin Islands for the past 4 years. Of course, there is no Republican presence here, that must be the reason I am so blatantly wrong.:)
No intelligent person from the US would make the glaring errors you've repeatedly committed. You're making the mistake of painting all of social conservatism with some broad brush that your 'education' has given you.
Somebody linked to the wikipedia article on this, which seemed to support my view of it. I have more support than you do, and I am, quite honestly, all evidence presented accounted for, correct. I did not paint a gigantic social movement with the same brush, I painted a single aspect of it with the same brush, which was entirely accurate. The Republican party, and its "conservative image" is composed of Social liberals, Social conservatives, Economic liberals, Economic conservatives, and almost all combinations of those axes. I could not paint it with one brush. I can paint social conservatism with one brush, and I can be correct in doing so. My textbook agrees, TV agrees, websites agree, and, for what it's worth, Wikipedia agrees. What doesn't agree? Apparently in your blasting of my ignorance you failed to provide a single source supporting your sentiment. You just continue to think I'm wrong, seemingly hypocritically so. Throughout this argument, I have gained more support for my views than lost, and yet you claim I am being "willfully ignorant". Well, I'm just agreeing with the data in front of me. Maybe you should have done a better job providing a reason, any reason, to cause me to change my mind before labeling me a mindless foreign zombie who refuses to correct his ignorant views, which are so obviously untrue. It's quite apparent that you never intended to convince me in the first place, you're just yet another AC trolling for responses. You win, my logic was obviously flawed, especially when it came to entering this senseless thread in the first place.
I don't know what either of my purported sources of opinion are. I know what I've read in my textbooks, and I know what I've seen in terms of opinion. Economic conservatism is different from social conservatism. The logical expansion of economic conservatism is actually closer to social liberalism-- what I would say you have. Conservatism itself isn't just one philosophy you can attribute to anything. If you want to disagree with my (conservative) texbooks and my logic, fine, but don't attach my beliefs to places they don't come from.
Educate yourself on the American social conservative school of thought and you'll find the strong tradition of individualism that I've spoken about previously.
What's funny is that everything I'm talking about came from my education, and my education labels this as economic conservatism and economic liberalism-- old-school Liberalism.
I don't think you're in a position to offer me anything other than your own flawed, individual opinion on the subject.
Well, you yourself mentioned two examples that apparently agree with me. As it stands, you've shown more support for my position than your own. Strange, huh?
From what I've heard, EULA's aren't very proven in court (in the US specifically, but also elsewhere). While it may be more applicable, it could be very dangerous-- if EULAs were held to simply be invalid, then a lot more than mod chip litigation is screwed over. Copyright is more proven, and indeed, cases like this are more likely to be won, or can be lost without as much devastation (copyright in its entirety will not be thrown out over such a case). It actually was won, of course, so the logic for copyright did have some foundation (even if not as much as using the EULA and contract law)-- just not enough for the next-higher level.
Nah, he unsuccessfully resisted the temptation to mention how he successfully resisted the temptation (aaah) to explain it in any detail, rather than just mention it without any explanation.
...or maybe, just maybe, your preconceived ideas on just what social conservatism means need a little expanding.
Social conservatism means what people think it means. If you are the only person that uses this definition, your definition is both useless and misleading. I do not expand my accepted definitions because a single person holds it. If somebody told me tomorrow that the moon is defined as an object made of green cheese, I would not add that to my list of accepted definitions. It would be useless clutter in my mind.
It's funny, as one of the pro-Paul arguments I heard a lot was "Sure, he disagrees with your views, but he believes the power should be held by the States, so he won't actually do anything you don't like!".
Those sound like economic ideals, not moral. "Social conservatism" has to do with how you live morally, generally-- whereas what you seem to be advocating is just "economic conservatism", or "right-wing economics", "libertarian economics", etc. . One can be economically conservative, socially liberal (Libertarian), economically and socially conservative (stereotypical republican, but...), etc. . Social-conservative economic-liberals are considered fascist pig-dogs by everybody, of course. Point is, from your description I wouldn't call you a social conservative, but an economic conservative and/or social liberal. What you consider 'social conservatism' (the belief that one should make their own way in life) is not at all the definition normally used in American politics. Either the definition where you are from is different, you aren't describing something correctly, or your definition is flat-out wrong for your culture and context.
My reasoning is that, well, everybody has the right to choose the license for their own work-- even if it means restricting it. I am not one of those people that believes that everybody should be forced to release their code as Open Source. I would never require that, because some people don't want to do that. I've seen the moral objectivist (which I am not, but bear with me) argument of 'power' versus 'right', and I think forcing people to release their work is a power. It is not a power, in my eyes, to do whatever you want with your own work, that's your right. I've seen it argued the other way, and the other way simply baffles me.
So then, why would I let somebody close up my work? Well, the answer is that anybody who uses my work in the creation of a new work, and licenses that work differently, isn't really affecting my work at all. My work is still open source, still available. What that means is that the only thing which they are really restricting, or changing the restrictions of, is their own work-- the changes to my work-- which can't be gotten by alternative means. So, in my eyes, me letting them close the source up if they wish is exactly the same as me letting them close the source of their own original work. Anybody who thinks that they don't have the latter right, wouldn't believe they have the former, and as far as I can see, anybody who thought they didn't have the former right would think they didn't have the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
No, very weak is "hjdmib". He a bit more than doubled the characters that needed to be searched. Obviously, throwing a few symbols in there would be nice, and even better would be some bytes outside of the domain of ASCII, but hey, you can't have it all. Though really, why not use "H3y Jud3, d0n't m4k3 11 b4d"? It has almost all of that, plus a good length.
Google says "much less". "7 million U.S. adults or 3.4 percent of U.S. consumers were identity theft victims in the past 12 months."
There is no violation of freedom of speech if a theater decides to turn all of its patrons' cell phones off, or some equivalent. Cell phone jammers already exist, if I recall, and cell phone detectors do as well. In any case, it's not a violation of freedom of speech, since a theater or restaurant is not the government.
Personally, I don't see much wrong with a theater or something making sure all cell-phones are turned off or otherwise non-functional inside the building. If you don't like it, you can go to a theater without such measures. In the meantime, everybody who wants a cell phone-free night, and is okay with "cell phone-free" including them, can go to that one that advertises that cell phones are banned.
There is, of course, a difference between turning off / jamming all cell phones in your private property, and doing so on public property, or somebody else's property. Since the technology already exists (one could make your theater a gigantic faraday cage, or use a cell-phone jammer), and there haven't been any serious mis-uses that I've heard of, I don't think the particular idea of blocking cell phone signals is one that will give people reason to abuse the technology. It's also certainly possible that the idea just isn't appealing to theaters, although I do know that every theater I've been in has asked everybody to turn their cell phones off. I've never actually been in a theater with somebody talking on their phone. Maybe people have enough decency down here.
By the way, looked up cell phone jammers, it seems that jammers are quite illegal in the US, but Italy, for example, allows theaters to use them for exactly this purpose.
No, this whole case would hinge on the defense's expert testimony, the DA's experts who agreed with that testimony after two forensic investigations, and the DA that dropped the case because he agreed with the three experts. Or so says TFA.
Unless you've got a whole bunch of amputees that agree with you, I doubt being armed is much of a problem.
You say that Windows going in an entirely new direction is a bad thing, yes? And you say, hey, look at apple, they don't change too much too fast like MS is trying to do! Well, look back a few years, and you'll notice that Mac OSX shares almost nothing with Mac OS9. Look a bit more recently, and you'll also find that Macs shifted processors entirely. Personally, I wish MS would do something more like Mac then-- switch to something UNIX. But if they don't, hey, Vista is a much smaller change from XP than OSX was to OS9. I wouldn't go championing Macs as the bastion of small-upgrades (although they did exceedingly well at maintaining backwards compatibility through various measures).
You have lost 250 experience for "ignorance".
You have gone down a level. You are now level 0.
You have 0/0 HP. ZeroDivisionError. Insert quarter for more HP.
Eh, the 72 virgin thing was a Muslim, not Arab, thing. Though, of course, arabs are your stereotypical Muslims (unfortunately). The 72 is not an exact figure (as is usually referred to)-- Arabia seems to have a tradition of saying numbers, but mean "a lot"-- as an example, A Thousand Nights and a Night (A thousand and one Arabian nights). 72 virgins link. Anyway, it's not really a big deal, in my opinion, and it really does piss off the victims of the negative comments.
It's not a bamboozle! The ruskies are indeed trying to steal my essence. God damned ruskies. Don't give me this bull about how all that is bull, you've obviously been enemy-indoctrinated.
Yes you can. Get a code auditor, make them sign an NDA, done! In fact, that's exactly what they were doing.
How do you measure something like how well things are documented with a percentage? Some code simply doesn't need documentation. Other code needs plenty. Is 0% a 1:1 relationship between lines of code and lines of comments? That whole thing seems a bit strange. They could certainly back it up if they wanted to, but that'd be too much effort.
No, I was referring specifically to Bittorrent trackers, which I, at least, can only find through the web.
Should I assume that those statistics are made up for the humor/rhetoric, since no web crawler has visited past 20% of the estimated size of the web, and P2P networks in general are impossible to know the full scope of (at the least without crawling all of the web)-- and some, specially designed ones, are even designed to make it impossible to know estimates of proportions of content on them?
I'd block all access to the internet-- much more effective.
I don't know what either of my purported sources of opinion are. I know what I've read in my textbooks, and I know what I've seen in terms of opinion. Economic conservatism is different from social conservatism. The logical expansion of economic conservatism is actually closer to social liberalism-- what I would say you have. Conservatism itself isn't just one philosophy you can attribute to anything. If you want to disagree with my (conservative) texbooks and my logic, fine, but don't attach my beliefs to places they don't come from.
What's funny is that everything I'm talking about came from my education, and my education labels this as economic conservatism and economic liberalism-- old-school Liberalism. Well, you yourself mentioned two examples that apparently agree with me. As it stands, you've shown more support for my position than your own. Strange, huh?From what I've heard, EULA's aren't very proven in court (in the US specifically, but also elsewhere). While it may be more applicable, it could be very dangerous-- if EULAs were held to simply be invalid, then a lot more than mod chip litigation is screwed over. Copyright is more proven, and indeed, cases like this are more likely to be won, or can be lost without as much devastation (copyright in its entirety will not be thrown out over such a case). It actually was won, of course, so the logic for copyright did have some foundation (even if not as much as using the EULA and contract law)-- just not enough for the next-higher level.
Nah, he unsuccessfully resisted the temptation to mention how he successfully resisted the temptation (aaah) to explain it in any detail, rather than just mention it without any explanation.
It's funny, as one of the pro-Paul arguments I heard a lot was "Sure, he disagrees with your views, but he believes the power should be held by the States, so he won't actually do anything you don't like!".
Those sound like economic ideals, not moral. "Social conservatism" has to do with how you live morally, generally-- whereas what you seem to be advocating is just "economic conservatism", or "right-wing economics", "libertarian economics", etc. . One can be economically conservative, socially liberal (Libertarian), economically and socially conservative (stereotypical republican, but...), etc. . Social-conservative economic-liberals are considered fascist pig-dogs by everybody, of course. Point is, from your description I wouldn't call you a social conservative, but an economic conservative and/or social liberal. What you consider 'social conservatism' (the belief that one should make their own way in life) is not at all the definition normally used in American politics. Either the definition where you are from is different, you aren't describing something correctly, or your definition is flat-out wrong for your culture and context.
My reasoning is that, well, everybody has the right to choose the license for their own work-- even if it means restricting it. I am not one of those people that believes that everybody should be forced to release their code as Open Source. I would never require that, because some people don't want to do that. I've seen the moral objectivist (which I am not, but bear with me) argument of 'power' versus 'right', and I think forcing people to release their work is a power. It is not a power, in my eyes, to do whatever you want with your own work, that's your right. I've seen it argued the other way, and the other way simply baffles me.
So then, why would I let somebody close up my work? Well, the answer is that anybody who uses my work in the creation of a new work, and licenses that work differently, isn't really affecting my work at all. My work is still open source, still available. What that means is that the only thing which they are really restricting, or changing the restrictions of, is their own work-- the changes to my work-- which can't be gotten by alternative means. So, in my eyes, me letting them close the source up if they wish is exactly the same as me letting them close the source of their own original work. Anybody who thinks that they don't have the latter right, wouldn't believe they have the former, and as far as I can see, anybody who thought they didn't have the former right would think they didn't have the latter.
By the way, fbcdn.net is hosted in the US by all measures I could find. :p