It's not crap in the OS that causes the vast majority of infections. It's crap in the user's heads.
Saying otherwise is like saying only car mechanics should be allowed to drive cars.
I'll take your first point about how we can't reasonably expect everyone to know about computers and the internet but I believe your analogy is flawed. The equivalent to the car mechanic is the person who can build and repair the computer (hardware, software). With cars we don't allow you to drive if you're not 1) licensed and 2) insured. I'm not saying we need to add computer insurance for people but maybe a minimum level of education on what the internet is and how unlikely it is that a random stranger simply wants to give you millions of dollars in exchange for your bank account info.
Alas, this is probably never going to be fixed as people have been getting conned for time immemorial.
My receiver, a Pioneer VKX1017, doesn't allow component inputs to go through HDMI outputs and vice versa. So, all my composite and component inputs go out through a component cable and my hdmi inputs go through and hdmi output. I think if I only had composite inputs then I could send those through my hdmi out, but the receiver won't switch component to hdmi (a real shame). As it is I only have to output video cables from my receiver to the TV.
Funny you should quote John Wayne, since he normally portrays values of fairness. It's not about dying for your country, it's about fighting fairly while still doing everything to win.
All I'm saying is those who don't fight fair should not also expect to be *respected* for their efforts.
War is ugly, war is violent, war is best avoided and war is definitely not fair. An unfair war where the enemy is demoralized to the point of surrender in the first month is better than a fair war that lasts for a decade. There is a difference between being unfair and being barbaric. Now, you could argue that desensitizing war leads to increased barbarism but fairness is not something that should be debated in war. Fairness is for sport fighting (ie. no hitting below the belt in boxing), not for life and death fighting.
First you have: 1) Basic molecules that replicate themselves 2) Basic molecules that do not replicate
In the long run, guess what you have more...
Next step: 1) Basic molecules that replicate themselves 2) A tiny bit more complex molecules that are better in replicating themselves (or last longer in the environment)
In the long run, guess what you have more... repeat ad infinitum.
I'll take a stab, non replicating molecules. The process of replicating cells (a general principle of life) is the conversion of molecules into other molecules. Molecules do not replicate, they are simply reconfigured through energy absorption and release.
They can talk, and language will alter if you let them learn on their own without help (Organization).
I think you're missing the meaning of "organization" in the definition of life. Organization refers to the structure of the living organism. Take creatures, they have tissues that make up organs that make up organ systems which make up the entire organism. Then you have plants, with their various parts, roots, leaves, veins, etc. The ability to organize as a group of organisms is not part of the definition.
Overall, I think this debate about what is life is a whole lot of semantics. The word life has been defined as having a specific meaning (rocks == not living, people == living) and it's going to stay that way for a long long while.
When the People, the holders of all power, declared it to be so. No warranty? Fine. We the People will simply stop buying your crappy products, until you give us a reasonable "satisfaction guaaranteed or money back" promise.
And in regards to the entertainment industry, that has not happened. People still buy the products, people are not boycotting effectively to stop their sales tactics. Once that happens then they'll change, but this is not law as in the constitution, this is law as in the free market (which we all know can fuck things up worse than you'd expect).
Your not understanding.. All high def has to be encrypted. Which means pretty much any home theater stereo system (minus a few very, very high end ones) will no longer work with encrypted HDMI.
In my experience most receivers can pass along an encrypted HDCP signal as long as the input is through HDMI and your output is through HDMI. My receiver allows for most incoming signals to be output through a single component video cable to my tv. The only exception is that HDMI input has to go through HDMI output, which means I'm constantly switching between my TV's component and HDMI input. Too bad it can't force signals through the HDMI output.
Many states require they take back a new car for a full refund for some period (3 days, 5 days, 7 days), and there are also laws protecting mail-order purchases because you often don't get a full idea of what the item is before you get it in your hand.
What states are those. I've never heard of that. Usually once the car leaves the lot the vehicle depreciates by a significant percent. Once you leave the lot the dealership can no longer market the vehicle as new (if the transaction is on a used car I'm not sure what the instant depreciation is).
AND they are tired of getting screwed up the ass by dishonest corporations that refuse to offer a basic "satisfaction guaranteed" warranty.
Woah, hold up, when did that become a requirement. In no way do I support the methods that the RIAA and their ilk use their lawyers but "satisfaction guaranteed" is a nice slogan but it's never been a necessity of sale. You can return your car if you don't like it but you won't get what you paid for it back. Similarly, there's not too much in office supplies that you can return after you've opened it (and they have a similar price scale for stuff like paper, pens, etc.).
My network admin enjoys taking my internet away whenever I am working. I am a Computer Technician so I need it almost all day. But he does not care. He laughs while I fail.
Strengthening your forearm so you can better use a screw driver does not count as work.
and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common good
What if I want to pretend that I believe this in the hopes that the RIAA will send it's dogs after Microsoft's (and maybe Google's) wolves and never come back. I feel fairly confident that Microsoft and Google have lawyers that would tear the RIAA apart in a real battle. There's a reason the RIAA hasn't taken strong tactics against them (specifically Google via YouTube) in the past.
Bring it on ourselves !! We pirate games because it's easy. If your customers somehow took 85% of your revenue, you'd do something - anything - to stop the hemorage. From another vantage, your boss deducted 85% from your pay, and "not because he needed but because he could - he would not have hired you if he couldn't". Sound faimilar? You'd be screaming bloody murder, hypocrits !! If you don't want the game, or you don't want the job, go elsewhere.
You bring up a fair point, but the problem is this, DRM doesn't work, and I don't think it ever will. People who pirate games/movies/music/whatever have found ways around all forms of drm. And they haven't just gotten around it, they've done it quickly. This is simply hurting the customers of the game and I think ubisoft has finally found a way of making drm ruin a game. If you're system hiccups you'll lose connection and the game. As far as I know previous drm has only kept people from loading the game if it failed but wouldn't boot a game mid play. This is going to cause the customers to drop the game and the pirates will continue to do their thing because trust me, this drm isn't any more bullet proof than the last batch.
The better question is does Monster Cable(TM) know about these Monster(TM) email files so that they can sue for infringing the Monster(TM) brand?
Why sue, this is a business opportunity for them. I can see it now, Monster Ethernet Cables, for those extra large e-mail messages (now with gold plated connectors to impress the ladies).
on the other hand if this means that anyone can slurp down your entire database and then resell it or even export it then it's less of a boon.
If the methods used to access that data was not legal then they are breaking the law by redistributing it. If I have some fancy sculpture in my home that people want to collect all the facts about they are still not allowed to do it until I give them access to my house.
They probably tossed out the copyright threat as it is the tactic du jour but they'd have a much easier time simply saying that in their private establishment they do not allow photography, videography, etc. The problem with the latter is that it might make them look like dicks where the former is simply a vague legal issue that most don't understand.
Okay, you can claim that I am uneducated (I would respectfully disagree) but I'm fairly certain that you just provided proof that you have never been taught reading comprehension. Let's take a look here.
You said
As for the Republicans, when in the minority they are SUPPOSED to be obstructionist.
To which I responded
...if a member of Congress votes against a bill because they believe that bill goes against public interest (not public opinion) then there's no issue. If a Congress person decides to vote against a bill simply because the opposition party proposed it then they are failing at their job.
Though I believe that what is being proposed for health care reform is better than doing nothing, I did not claim that opposition to that reform was unfounded. I simply stated that being an obstructionist for the sake of obstructing is not correct. Obstructing because you believe that what is being proposed is wrong is perfectly fine. I refuse to believe that the minority party should be obstructionists simply because they are the minority. Decisions of law should be based on rational analysis of the impact of that proposal on the people of the nation/ state/ district and not on knee jerk reactionary, get myself reelected above all else, politics.
As for the Republicans, when in the minority they are SUPPOSED to be obstructionist. The system is supposed to have checks and balances. Obama with Democrat control of the House and Senate means there's no checks and balances.
No, that's not the way it's supposed to be. When you're in Congress you are suppose to think rationally and vote along lines that are in the interest of the citizens of the United States. Now, if a member of Congress votes against a bill because they believe that bill goes against public interest (not public opinion) then there's no issue. If a Congress person decides to vote against a bill simply because the opposition party proposed it then they are failing at their job. It seems that now more member of Congress are failing than are doing their job respectfully.
Actually, I'd argue I don't feel any safer because I didn't feel unsafe before. I'm more likely to die by alcohol poisoning, in a car accident, from a heart attack, or cancer, and these are all things that I can have a direct influence on.
firms founded in 2004, only 19% had women as primary owners. And only 3% of tech firms and 1% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women.
Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men.... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9% of venture capital investments; in 2007
Let's play a little game I like to play called "math is fun". in 2004 19% of firms were founded by women. This 19% says nothing about % of market but for fun let's say it's exactly 19% (a generous assumption). In 2007 women received less than 9% of venture capital. Let's say that 2007 was identical to 2004 and 19% of new market was from women. That means that you get 9% VC / 19% market for women and 91% VC / 71% market for men. This might not be good but it's certainly not as bad as the summary paints it to be.
You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs,...than a terrorist.
This makes me feel good, I don't have a basement so that means I'll have a zero chance of being killed by terrorist. Actually, that sounds about right.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not crap in the OS that causes the vast majority of infections. It's crap in the user's heads.
Saying otherwise is like saying only car mechanics should be allowed to drive cars.
I'll take your first point about how we can't reasonably expect everyone to know about computers and the internet but I believe your analogy is flawed. The equivalent to the car mechanic is the person who can build and repair the computer (hardware, software). With cars we don't allow you to drive if you're not 1) licensed and 2) insured. I'm not saying we need to add computer insurance for people but maybe a minimum level of education on what the internet is and how unlikely it is that a random stranger simply wants to give you millions of dollars in exchange for your bank account info.
Alas, this is probably never going to be fixed as people have been getting conned for time immemorial.
My receiver, a Pioneer VKX1017, doesn't allow component inputs to go through HDMI outputs and vice versa. So, all my composite and component inputs go out through a component cable and my hdmi inputs go through and hdmi output. I think if I only had composite inputs then I could send those through my hdmi out, but the receiver won't switch component to hdmi (a real shame). As it is I only have to output video cables from my receiver to the TV.
Funny you should quote John Wayne, since he normally portrays values of
fairness.
It's not about dying for your country, it's about fighting fairly while still doing everything to win.
All I'm saying is those who don't fight fair should not also expect to be *respected* for their efforts.
War is ugly, war is violent, war is best avoided and war is definitely not fair. An unfair war where the enemy is demoralized to the point of surrender in the first month is better than a fair war that lasts for a decade. There is a difference between being unfair and being barbaric. Now, you could argue that desensitizing war leads to increased barbarism but fairness is not something that should be debated in war. Fairness is for sport fighting (ie. no hitting below the belt in boxing), not for life and death fighting.
First you have:
1) Basic molecules that replicate themselves
2) Basic molecules that do not replicate
In the long run, guess what you have more...
Next step:
1) Basic molecules that replicate themselves
2) A tiny bit more complex molecules that are better in replicating themselves (or last longer in the environment)
In the long run, guess what you have more... repeat ad infinitum.
I'll take a stab, non replicating molecules. The process of replicating cells (a general principle of life) is the conversion of molecules into other molecules. Molecules do not replicate, they are simply reconfigured through energy absorption and release.
Sure. Anything with nipples can live.
I believe the correct quote is, "I have nipples Faucker, can you milk me"
They can talk, and language will alter if you let them learn on their own without help (Organization).
I think you're missing the meaning of "organization" in the definition of life. Organization refers to the structure of the living organism. Take creatures, they have tissues that make up organs that make up organ systems which make up the entire organism. Then you have plants, with their various parts, roots, leaves, veins, etc. The ability to organize as a group of organisms is not part of the definition.
Overall, I think this debate about what is life is a whole lot of semantics. The word life has been defined as having a specific meaning (rocks == not living, people == living) and it's going to stay that way for a long long while.
When the People, the holders of all power, declared it to be so. No warranty? Fine. We the People will simply stop buying your crappy products, until you give us a reasonable "satisfaction guaaranteed or money back" promise.
And in regards to the entertainment industry, that has not happened. People still buy the products, people are not boycotting effectively to stop their sales tactics. Once that happens then they'll change, but this is not law as in the constitution, this is law as in the free market (which we all know can fuck things up worse than you'd expect).
I'd prefer DVI + "something" for sound (RCA, coax, etc).
Go with optical cables. They're not too expensive and near zero interference problems.
Your not understanding.. All high def has to be encrypted. Which means pretty much any home theater stereo system (minus a few very, very high end ones) will no longer work with encrypted HDMI.
In my experience most receivers can pass along an encrypted HDCP signal as long as the input is through HDMI and your output is through HDMI. My receiver allows for most incoming signals to be output through a single component video cable to my tv. The only exception is that HDMI input has to go through HDMI output, which means I'm constantly switching between my TV's component and HDMI input. Too bad it can't force signals through the HDMI output.
Many states require they take back a new car for a full refund for some period (3 days, 5 days, 7 days), and there are also laws protecting mail-order purchases because you often don't get a full idea of what the item is before you get it in your hand.
What states are those. I've never heard of that. Usually once the car leaves the lot the vehicle depreciates by a significant percent. Once you leave the lot the dealership can no longer market the vehicle as new (if the transaction is on a used car I'm not sure what the instant depreciation is).
AND they are tired of getting screwed up the ass by dishonest corporations that refuse to offer a basic "satisfaction guaranteed" warranty.
Woah, hold up, when did that become a requirement. In no way do I support the methods that the RIAA and their ilk use their lawyers but "satisfaction guaranteed" is a nice slogan but it's never been a necessity of sale. You can return your car if you don't like it but you won't get what you paid for it back. Similarly, there's not too much in office supplies that you can return after you've opened it (and they have a similar price scale for stuff like paper, pens, etc.).
My network admin enjoys taking my internet away whenever I am working. I am a Computer Technician so I need it almost all day. But he does not care. He laughs while I fail.
Strengthening your forearm so you can better use a screw driver does not count as work.
and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common good
What if I want to pretend that I believe this in the hopes that the RIAA will send it's dogs after Microsoft's (and maybe Google's) wolves and never come back. I feel fairly confident that Microsoft and Google have lawyers that would tear the RIAA apart in a real battle. There's a reason the RIAA hasn't taken strong tactics against them (specifically Google via YouTube) in the past.
Bring it on ourselves !! We pirate games because it's easy. If your customers somehow took 85% of your revenue, you'd do something - anything - to stop the hemorage. From another vantage, your boss deducted 85% from your pay, and "not because he needed but because he could - he would not have hired you if he couldn't". Sound faimilar? You'd be screaming bloody murder, hypocrits !! If you don't want the game, or you don't want the job, go elsewhere.
You bring up a fair point, but the problem is this, DRM doesn't work, and I don't think it ever will. People who pirate games/movies/music/whatever have found ways around all forms of drm. And they haven't just gotten around it, they've done it quickly. This is simply hurting the customers of the game and I think ubisoft has finally found a way of making drm ruin a game. If you're system hiccups you'll lose connection and the game. As far as I know previous drm has only kept people from loading the game if it failed but wouldn't boot a game mid play. This is going to cause the customers to drop the game and the pirates will continue to do their thing because trust me, this drm isn't any more bullet proof than the last batch.
The better question is does Monster Cable(TM) know about these Monster(TM) email files so that they can sue for infringing the Monster(TM) brand?
Why sue, this is a business opportunity for them. I can see it now, Monster Ethernet Cables, for those extra large e-mail messages (now with gold plated connectors to impress the ladies).
I find pushing it back upright, perhaps with the occasional irritated punch, always works.
Maybe it's the look on my face whenever anybody actually turns around to complain..
I support this 100%. Mastering a proper scowl is a must for minimizing verbal garbage.
on the other hand if this means that anyone can slurp down your entire database and then resell it or even export it then it's less of a boon.
If the methods used to access that data was not legal then they are breaking the law by redistributing it. If I have some fancy sculpture in my home that people want to collect all the facts about they are still not allowed to do it until I give them access to my house.
They probably tossed out the copyright threat as it is the tactic du jour but they'd have a much easier time simply saying that in their private establishment they do not allow photography, videography, etc. The problem with the latter is that it might make them look like dicks where the former is simply a vague legal issue that most don't understand.
Okay, you can claim that I am uneducated (I would respectfully disagree) but I'm fairly certain that you just provided proof that you have never been taught reading comprehension. Let's take a look here.
You said
As for the Republicans, when in the minority they are SUPPOSED to be obstructionist.
To which I responded
...if a member of Congress votes against a bill because they believe that bill goes against public interest (not public opinion) then there's no issue. If a Congress person decides to vote against a bill simply because the opposition party proposed it then they are failing at their job.
Though I believe that what is being proposed for health care reform is better than doing nothing, I did not claim that opposition to that reform was unfounded. I simply stated that being an obstructionist for the sake of obstructing is not correct. Obstructing because you believe that what is being proposed is wrong is perfectly fine. I refuse to believe that the minority party should be obstructionists simply because they are the minority. Decisions of law should be based on rational analysis of the impact of that proposal on the people of the nation/ state/ district and not on knee jerk reactionary, get myself reelected above all else, politics.
As for the Republicans, when in the minority they are SUPPOSED to be obstructionist. The system is supposed to have checks and balances. Obama with Democrat control of the House and Senate means there's no checks and balances.
No, that's not the way it's supposed to be. When you're in Congress you are suppose to think rationally and vote along lines that are in the interest of the citizens of the United States. Now, if a member of Congress votes against a bill because they believe that bill goes against public interest (not public opinion) then there's no issue. If a Congress person decides to vote against a bill simply because the opposition party proposed it then they are failing at their job. It seems that now more member of Congress are failing than are doing their job respectfully.
Distilling the fabric of space and time into a single equation is genius.
I would contend that qualifies as something much greater than genius.
Actually, I'd argue I don't feel any safer because I didn't feel unsafe before. I'm more likely to die by alcohol poisoning, in a car accident, from a heart attack, or cancer, and these are all things that I can have a direct influence on.
Terrorism just doesn't scare me.
Amen brother.
firms founded in 2004, only 19% had women as primary owners. And only 3% of tech firms and 1% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women.
Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men. ... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9% of venture capital investments; in 2007
Let's play a little game I like to play called "math is fun". in 2004 19% of firms were founded by women. This 19% says nothing about % of market but for fun let's say it's exactly 19% (a generous assumption). In 2007 women received less than 9% of venture capital. Let's say that 2007 was identical to 2004 and 19% of new market was from women. That means that you get 9% VC / 19% market for women and 91% VC / 71% market for men. This might not be good but it's certainly not as bad as the summary paints it to be.
I wouldn't feel terribly uncomfortable walking naked through the airport (except maybe for the breeze). However, it would be my choice to do so.
Except for when the cops taser you because nobody wants to tackle the random naked dude in the airport.
>
You're more likely to die from falling down your basement stairs,...than a terrorist.
This makes me feel good, I don't have a basement so that means I'll have a zero chance of being killed by terrorist. Actually, that sounds about right.