but more than 75% of the population are such cultists.
Yet the outcome of popular elections (see Bush v Gore, c. 11/2000, et al.) are regularly contested. If 75% of people were 'cultists', as you call those who follow an organized religion (of which are not all zealots), then when it comes to politics, their brainwashed masses would pretty well dictate the political discourse with relative ease. They all drank the same Kool-Aid, right?
(your fingerprint or retina might have been stolen, either as a copy or more directly!)
If your retina were stolen, I would think that would pretty much guarantee that you (at the very least) didn't authorize it...and has a degree of certainty on the not present bit. Though, I'm sure there's some twisted individual out there willing to lose an eye for the heist of a lifetime (taking, for the example of the $1B).
#3 could be a bug...but really, the bug is in the eye of the beholder. What to you is a bug, is to me a feature!
#1 is already resolved, assuming Bugs 2-5 can be considered Enhancement Requests for v1.1 (or v1.0.1, or v2), and the program had the useful purpose of proving that software can exist, at release, without bugs (this would disqualify Bug #1 as a bug, but rather make it a user education issue for the target audience).
Ok, so we let ISPs have carte blanche on detecting and stopping 'bad things' until said 'bad things' are gone. Who classifies these 'bad things'? What guidelines are used to determine these 'bad things' are happening? How granular should these guidelines be? Who sets those guidelines?
To take a hypothetical example, let's say a botnet crops up that operates on port 43187. Let's also say my torrent client, used only to download the latest Ubuntu image also happens to use 43187. Is the fact that my modem is taking traffic on that port enough to cut me off? How do I prove to my ISP that my system isn't being used for nefarious purposes? Do I have to have them send out a guy to watch my reinstall my OS from an OEM disc AND install the latest and greatest in anti-virus software?
Let's extend a bit further...let's say my ISP sets usage caps, and participates in this sort of scheme. Are updates to the AV software going to be excluded? Do they have the capability TO exclude traffic destined for my AV software's update servers? I mean, if I don't keep up to date, I might get infected and have to do the whole dog-and-pony show anyhow. But if I go over my cap, I might get an over-glorified dial-up class connection. Decisions....
Create timeouts/failures! Attach a router to your router, forward the requisite port on Router A to go to Router B, who would be configured to forward BACK to Router A!
It's like forwarding my calls to a number that will forward my calls to me. They wait and wait, my phone never rings, and eventually they get pissed and hang up!
You could, however, type out the alphabet (CAPS and lowers), numbers, symbols, and such into a word editor, and painstakingly copy/paste every letter of your usernames, passwords, and posts. When they keylogger turns up 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789`-=[]\;',./~!@#$%^&*()_+{}|:"?^C^V^C^V^C^V^C^V...', I imagine there would be some crying.
Also, you may be required to wear a tin-foil sombrero. Also, this is probably defeatable in any case.
I have borderline ethics, think the idea of holding public office is novel (it might get me a Wikipedia entry!), and think CEOs and top-tier professional athletes are overpaid buffoons. I also carry a dagger in my shirtsleeve. Do I have your vote?
So, what you're saying is, Microsoft are aiming for a judgement that would cause the courts to invalidate over-broad patents, in the hope that Congress would create legislation that would try and buck the Judiciary?
Why would the Judiciary not strike such legislation down?
Years of prior art would invalidate such a thing. All a lawyer would need to do is Google 'M$' or 'Micro$oft'--and it would be to them, because it's pretty certain that's not part of the USPTO's SOP to do so--and invalidation would occur.
You might be able to scare some folks into licensing before that happens, though.
There was no Federal ban of online gambling so please, get your facts straight. What Bush signed into law on 9/30/06 (as an attachment to Port Security Act) was a ban on financial institutions knowingly transferring funds to companies/individuals that are involved in gambling operations where those operations are already illegal.
So, what you're saying is, they didn't ban online gambling, they banned financial institutions from relaying money from the U.S. to abroad for the purposes of online gambling; they instituted a de facto ban on online gambling, without so many words--if US financial institutions aren't able to send the funds US residents are wanting to use for this, then those residents aren't going to be able to play. The only difference between the two is who gets tagged; an outright ban, the player is in hock; with current law, it's the institutions that get nailed.
Further, it's not just those receiving the funds who have been targeted; the first two arrests where those involved in processing the payments (Chad Elie and John Campos)--the payment processors are the ones transferring the funds (on behalf of someone else--however, the payment processors do have the ability to question and say no...similar to why my electric, cable, and auto insurance payments got flagged by my card issuer today).
Last, you can blame the DoJ and the AG appointed by Obama, but bear in mind that Obama's control over the DoJ is pretty much getting rid of AG Holder and working to get someone else confirmed in his place...otherwise, Holder and Co. are free to do as they will at peril of losing their positions--the President cannot force the AG to pursue or not pursue charges against a person/entity, he can only make recommendations. Take Holder's actions as his, unless you have something to demonstrate the President or the Democratic party were in full force behind it.
Even so, Riker had a regular source; Picard had two flings. Personally, I'd take the former--a regular source that might get frequent headaches--than the irregular that might have some strange super-AIDS that the Federation hadn't zapped yet.
Pure speculation. We know Riker got Troi, but Picard...well, all we know was he was an old, unmarried, childless Frenchie. You may presume that he got more alien tang, but such is never brought to light.
If it were kept as-is, it would be 'Jngling'...Americans would ignore the umlaut, seeing the u, and would say' 'Jungling (juhng-ling)', and go WTF.
Aside: as far as umlauts being expressed as letter+e, how did that start? It doesn't feel, to me, as that's quite accurate (though, I'm a) not a native German speaker, and b) haven't used German in about six years)...then again, is there a better option?
Do that too much, and eBay et al may assume bad faith, and swing the banhammer the wrong way; eBay neither wants to eat the loss or chase away a group of sellers that might (dishonestly) get them a buck or a million. They're not under any obligation to continue providing their service to you at any point, and if you're causing trouble to them outside of their self-protective guidelines, good-bye.
Though, creating a new eBay/Paypal account is fairly trivial...
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the burden of proof lay with the scientists, they would still win easily. The Bible would probably be considered hearsay.
but more than 75% of the population are such cultists.
Yet the outcome of popular elections (see Bush v Gore, c. 11/2000, et al.) are regularly contested. If 75% of people were 'cultists', as you call those who follow an organized religion (of which are not all zealots), then when it comes to politics, their brainwashed masses would pretty well dictate the political discourse with relative ease. They all drank the same Kool-Aid, right?
(your fingerprint or retina might have been stolen, either as a copy or more directly!)
If your retina were stolen, I would think that would pretty much guarantee that you (at the very least) didn't authorize it...and has a degree of certainty on the not present bit. Though, I'm sure there's some twisted individual out there willing to lose an eye for the heist of a lifetime (taking, for the example of the $1B).
#3 could be a bug...but really, the bug is in the eye of the beholder. What to you is a bug, is to me a feature!
#1 is already resolved, assuming Bugs 2-5 can be considered Enhancement Requests for v1.1 (or v1.0.1, or v2), and the program had the useful purpose of proving that software can exist, at release, without bugs (this would disqualify Bug #1 as a bug, but rather make it a user education issue for the target audience).
Ok, so we let ISPs have carte blanche on detecting and stopping 'bad things' until said 'bad things' are gone. Who classifies these 'bad things'? What guidelines are used to determine these 'bad things' are happening? How granular should these guidelines be? Who sets those guidelines?
To take a hypothetical example, let's say a botnet crops up that operates on port 43187. Let's also say my torrent client, used only to download the latest Ubuntu image also happens to use 43187. Is the fact that my modem is taking traffic on that port enough to cut me off? How do I prove to my ISP that my system isn't being used for nefarious purposes? Do I have to have them send out a guy to watch my reinstall my OS from an OEM disc AND install the latest and greatest in anti-virus software?
Let's extend a bit further...let's say my ISP sets usage caps, and participates in this sort of scheme. Are updates to the AV software going to be excluded? Do they have the capability TO exclude traffic destined for my AV software's update servers? I mean, if I don't keep up to date, I might get infected and have to do the whole dog-and-pony show anyhow. But if I go over my cap, I might get an over-glorified dial-up class connection. Decisions....
Where does it stop?
+1, Insightful response to Jackassery
-1, Jackassery
Create timeouts/failures! Attach a router to your router, forward the requisite port on Router A to go to Router B, who would be configured to forward BACK to Router A!
It's like forwarding my calls to a number that will forward my calls to me. They wait and wait, my phone never rings, and eventually they get pissed and hang up!
You could, however, type out the alphabet (CAPS and lowers), numbers, symbols, and such into a word editor, and painstakingly copy/paste every letter of your usernames, passwords, and posts. When they keylogger turns up 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789`-=[]\;',./~!@#$%^&*()_+{}|:"?^C^V^C^V^C^V^C^V...', I imagine there would be some crying.
Also, you may be required to wear a tin-foil sombrero. Also, this is probably defeatable in any case.
Goddammit, forgot the line breaks. Imagine 'em.
And while your at name one piece of software or OS that was 100% bug free when released.
How about this little bit of BASIC? 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" 20 GOTO 10 Does exactly what I want it to, every time.
It's a Trojan. It ruins all the fun.
The above would also have been an acceptable response.
I have borderline ethics, think the idea of holding public office is novel (it might get me a Wikipedia entry!), and think CEOs and top-tier professional athletes are overpaid buffoons. I also carry a dagger in my shirtsleeve. Do I have your vote?
If an auto manufacturer sold a vehicle that melted in the rain,
Then it might be made of sugar (and delicious) or salt (and good for margarita night or deer hunting).
With an extra fucking star, nonetheless. Must have been fucking emphatic.
Dicks and asses, eh? And where they meet, a whole lot of people get fucked?
Like BB guns?
Yep, that shot his eye out...better not sell this to little Johnny,,,
So, what you're saying is, Microsoft are aiming for a judgement that would cause the courts to invalidate over-broad patents, in the hope that Congress would create legislation that would try and buck the Judiciary?
Why would the Judiciary not strike such legislation down?
Years of prior art would invalidate such a thing. All a lawyer would need to do is Google 'M$' or 'Micro$oft'--and it would be to them, because it's pretty certain that's not part of the USPTO's SOP to do so--and invalidation would occur.
You might be able to scare some folks into licensing before that happens, though.
There was no Federal ban of online gambling so please, get your facts straight. What Bush signed into law on 9/30/06 (as an attachment to Port Security Act) was a ban on financial institutions knowingly transferring funds to companies/individuals that are involved in gambling operations where those operations are already illegal.
So, what you're saying is, they didn't ban online gambling, they banned financial institutions from relaying money from the U.S. to abroad for the purposes of online gambling; they instituted a de facto ban on online gambling, without so many words--if US financial institutions aren't able to send the funds US residents are wanting to use for this, then those residents aren't going to be able to play. The only difference between the two is who gets tagged; an outright ban, the player is in hock; with current law, it's the institutions that get nailed.
Further, it's not just those receiving the funds who have been targeted; the first two arrests where those involved in processing the payments (Chad Elie and John Campos)--the payment processors are the ones transferring the funds (on behalf of someone else--however, the payment processors do have the ability to question and say no...similar to why my electric, cable, and auto insurance payments got flagged by my card issuer today).
Last, you can blame the DoJ and the AG appointed by Obama, but bear in mind that Obama's control over the DoJ is pretty much getting rid of AG Holder and working to get someone else confirmed in his place...otherwise, Holder and Co. are free to do as they will at peril of losing their positions--the President cannot force the AG to pursue or not pursue charges against a person/entity, he can only make recommendations. Take Holder's actions as his, unless you have something to demonstrate the President or the Democratic party were in full force behind it.
Even so, Riker had a regular source; Picard had two flings. Personally, I'd take the former--a regular source that might get frequent headaches--than the irregular that might have some strange super-AIDS that the Federation hadn't zapped yet.
Impotence, not getting laid...it's the same thing to the human race.
Pure speculation. We know Riker got Troi, but Picard...well, all we know was he was an old, unmarried, childless Frenchie. You may presume that he got more alien tang, but such is never brought to light.
If it were kept as-is, it would be 'Jngling'...Americans would ignore the umlaut, seeing the u, and would say' 'Jungling (juhng-ling)', and go WTF.
Aside: as far as umlauts being expressed as letter+e, how did that start? It doesn't feel, to me, as that's quite accurate (though, I'm a) not a native German speaker, and b) haven't used German in about six years)...then again, is there a better option?
Why was there no 'Jinx, you owe me a coke' between this and the two replies immediately above? (Max 6 mins between)
Do that too much, and eBay et al may assume bad faith, and swing the banhammer the wrong way; eBay neither wants to eat the loss or chase away a group of sellers that might (dishonestly) get them a buck or a million. They're not under any obligation to continue providing their service to you at any point, and if you're causing trouble to them outside of their self-protective guidelines, good-bye.
Though, creating a new eBay/Paypal account is fairly trivial...