And yet, if a locksmith writes a book that details how a certain brand of lock is not secure, including reproducible instructions given in order to prove he is correct, and then someone uses that book to break into your house, that locksmith will IN NO WAY be liable for your loss. I don't think your logic holds up. This person is not "knowingly giving thieves access to your property," he is publishing security information.
I once told a friend that if you eat polonium you will die. I suppose that makes me responsible for Litvinenko's death?
Is that some kind of server room safety equipment? And what's NFL? Is that some new kind of filesystem? Don't just tease us with these mysterious new IT related products, give us the details!
There are dozens of different entries at that site. Maybe hundreds, it's been a few years since I looked though all of them. Most of them do not have light grey text on a black background. The neat thing about the site is that the html is exactly the same, only the CSS changes.
Wow, who would have thought that you could cram 5 single processor dual core 1U boxes into the space that you could cram 16 quad processor quad core blades into? This is simply AMAZING!
Yes, for the pedantic nitwit lurking out there ready to pounce, IBM does not recommend this without some serious upgrades to the BladeCenter power supply and a very good external cooling system. Seriously though, generic dual core 1u servers are so two years ago.
Dude, in LawyerLand the very fact that it HAS a strap is an admission that it may involuntarily fly out fo your hand through no fault of your own. If it had no strap, it would arguably be much more likely to leave your hand and cause injury or damage, but the company would probably be LESS liable.
Some MP3 files have been released into the public domain by their auhors and are no longer copyrighted. And "copyrighted mp3s" is short for "mp3s copyrighted by someone important who has the time and inclination to protect their copyright." Finally, not all countries that are signatory to the Berne convention have the same exact rules. To be safe, use the phrase "Copyright [date] by [author]. All rights reserved." Even though not strictly necessary in most places, it will help you win and recover more damages in court.
You can use it for that express purpose, but that is utterly missing the point. The site in question exists for the sole purpose of linking to copyrighted material. Google has many other legitimate uses. See the difference?
Snide comments aside, I think this is utterly stupid. Blowing shit up is illegal. Writing a book on how to blow shit up and where to buy all the parts is not. Why should saying, essentially, "This guy, who's site you can find here, is hosting copyrighted material," be illegal?
That's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious: because greedy corporate bastards with their hands up the politician's backsides have decided they aren't snorting enough coke off of enough supermodel's asses and they deserve more compensation.
Founded originally as the Ideahamster Organization for generating security-centric inventions for the open source community, we continue to provide collective information and tools under the open licenses under the Open Source Initiative and the Open Methodology License for free public dissemination. Our main technical team members are still known as "ideahamsters" which is a term used to describe a person who is always providing creative and new ideas.
Wow. Just, wow. So is this an organization started and run by twelve year old wanna-be hackers?
Dude, this line of reasoning comes straight from militia freaks in Oregon who want to steal your money. I had a friend in Hawaii who was scammed by these guys. I tried to tell him that it was all bullshit, even showing him books about the Fed that contradicted what these asshole scammers said, but of course that was all just propaganda. Poor guy lost thousands to the scammers and thousands more to the IRS.
If you want to believe this crap, go ahead, I won't try to talk you out of it. But here's some links so you can find out more for yourself:
You don't get the most important concept. There is no such thing as an external scale. There are only internal scales created by internal processes. Thi is a frightening concept for most people to grasp, as it means that not only is everything relative, there is no possibility of an absolute. There is no outside. Think about it, if there were an outside, there would need to be an outside of the outside, and an outside of the outside of the outside, and so on. In fact, as this is an infinite regress, you would never get to the "real" outside, as it is infinitely far away. Every outside is also an inside, right? So there can be no final outside, as every possible outside is also inside something else.
This is a problem with dualistic thinking and dualistic language. You are used to a dualistic way of thinking, and you are used to thinking of the universe in dualistic terms. You can't even begin to think non-dualistically, as every time you begin to you are forced to put your thoughts into dualistic terms. Saying "it's all one" is meaningless: "It" is not "one," that is still dualistic.
A "superverse" is technically possible, but that means one of two things: either it interacts with us, in which case "inside" and "outside" are relative and meaningless terms, or it doesn't interact with us, in which case as far as we are concerned, it doesn't exist. Hope that helps.
Dude, cooperation is the devil. Don't you listen to the capitalists and libertarians? Only pinko commie socialists cooperate. Everyone else tries their damndest to kill or fuck over everything else on the planet. That's the American way.
The main problem is in breaknig down cellulose. Cellulose is not easy to convert to energy, just look at cows. They require four stomaches, special enzymes and help from bacteria to do it. Most plant matter is cellulose. If we could find a way to break dowen cellulose economically, then any crop would be suitable. Without that, then almost no crops are suitable. As to the land area, there are no crops that produce enough energy to remove this as a concern. We would need to more than double the amount of land we cultivate in order to meet our energy needs.
Are any of these issues insurmountable? Of coursed not. Biofuels are a promising line of reasearch. But they won't, by themselves, solve all our energy concerns.
You are attempting to apply common sense notions to a field where those notions make no sense. Either you have the math to be able to logically figure out why your common sense notions do not apply, or you pretty much have to take it on faith that the theorists are right and the whole notion of "inside/outside" breaks down when we are talking about the universe.
Think about it this way: inside the universe, everything breaks down into polar opposites. One pair of polar opposites is called "defined/undefined." "Polar opposites" is a defintion. "Outside the universe" is undefined. There are no polar opposites outside the universe. Therefore, there is no outside the universe.;-)
When I say Listerine invented bad breath, of course I am not saying that it didn't exist before Listerine! I am saying it wasn't an issue before Listerine made it an issue. From Freakonomics:
Listerine was invented in the 19th century as a powerful surgical antiseptic. It was later sold, in a distilled form, as a floor cleaner and a cure for gonorrhea. But it wasn't a runaway success until the 1920s, when it was pitched as a solution for "chronic halitosis", the faux medical term that the Listerine advertising group created in 1921 to describe bad breath. By naming and thus creating a medical condition for which consumers now felt they needed a cure, Listerine created a market for their mouthwash. Until that time, bad breath was not conventionally considered a catastrophe, but Listerine's ad campaign changed that.
When I said DeBeers invented the engagement ring, I really meant the diamond engagement ring and I should have been more clear. They also invented the concept of the surprise proposal. Their market research showed that women would rather have a man spend money on a down payment on a home, and so they convinced men not to ask and just buy her the ring. The idea that a man should spend two months salary on a trinket is ridiculous and any woman who hadn't been brainwashed would tell him so.
As to Valentines day, well of course it is traditional but it was never traditional to give pre made greeting cards, chocolate or jewelry. It was always a time when you wrote your sweetheart love poems. But no one could make much money on that, so Hallmark reinvented it here in America as a gift giving holiday.
Dandruff was never seen as an embarassing problem until dandruff shampoo companies concentrated on making people feel bad about having it.
Let me ask you, is a woman at fault for being raped? No? Even if she is wearing provocative clothing? Even if she is alone at night, weak and susceptible? Is a mugging victim at fault for being weak and susceptible? Why would you blame the victim here?
I have given examples above where am advertiser has created a demand for a product by making people feel bad about something they enver felt bad about before. Also, by wasting time that could be spent on relieveing real suffering, advertising promotes suffering. Finally, advertisers have a vested interest in keeping people stupid and easily manipulated and so they will unconsciously play along with all the other powerful people who have similar goals, often in subtle or unconscious ways.
In a fully sane human race, there would be no advertising and the role of getting the word out connecting buyers and sellers would be done by independent reviewers like Consumer Reports. I guess you could call that advertising, in which case I wouldn't deny there is some place for it in a fully sane society. But that is stretching the definition quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Top Ten items we couldn't sell and need to get rid of because they are taking up space of 2006!
It's Channel Reseller News, a trade rag, so I think you hit the nail on the head there.
And yet, if a locksmith writes a book that details how a certain brand of lock is not secure, including reproducible instructions given in order to prove he is correct, and then someone uses that book to break into your house, that locksmith will IN NO WAY be liable for your loss. I don't think your logic holds up. This person is not "knowingly giving thieves access to your property," he is publishing security information.
I once told a friend that if you eat polonium you will die. I suppose that makes me responsible for Litvinenko's death?
Is that some kind of server room safety equipment? And what's NFL? Is that some new kind of filesystem? Don't just tease us with these mysterious new IT related products, give us the details!
There are dozens of different entries at that site. Maybe hundreds, it's been a few years since I looked though all of them. Most of them do not have light grey text on a black background. The neat thing about the site is that the html is exactly the same, only the CSS changes.
Remember, none of us is as dumb as all of us.
Wow, who would have thought that you could cram 5 single processor dual core 1U boxes into the space that you could cram 16 quad processor quad core blades into? This is simply AMAZING!
Yes, for the pedantic nitwit lurking out there ready to pounce, IBM does not recommend this without some serious upgrades to the BladeCenter power supply and a very good external cooling system. Seriously though, generic dual core 1u servers are so two years ago.
Dude, in LawyerLand the very fact that it HAS a strap is an admission that it may involuntarily fly out fo your hand through no fault of your own. If it had no strap, it would arguably be much more likely to leave your hand and cause injury or damage, but the company would probably be LESS liable.
Isn't law fun?
Some MP3 files have been released into the public domain by their auhors and are no longer copyrighted. And "copyrighted mp3s" is short for "mp3s copyrighted by someone important who has the time and inclination to protect their copyright." Finally, not all countries that are signatory to the Berne convention have the same exact rules. To be safe, use the phrase "Copyright [date] by [author]. All rights reserved." Even though not strictly necessary in most places, it will help you win and recover more damages in court.
You can use it for that express purpose, but that is utterly missing the point. The site in question exists for the sole purpose of linking to copyrighted material. Google has many other legitimate uses. See the difference?
Snide comments aside, I think this is utterly stupid. Blowing shit up is illegal. Writing a book on how to blow shit up and where to buy all the parts is not. Why should saying, essentially, "This guy, who's site you can find here, is hosting copyrighted material," be illegal?
That's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious: because greedy corporate bastards with their hands up the politician's backsides have decided they aren't snorting enough coke off of enough supermodel's asses and they deserve more compensation.
Wow. Just, wow. So is this an organization started and run by twelve year old wanna-be hackers?
Dude, this line of reasoning comes straight from militia freaks in Oregon who want to steal your money. I had a friend in Hawaii who was scammed by these guys. I tried to tell him that it was all bullshit, even showing him books about the Fed that contradicted what these asshole scammers said, but of course that was all just propaganda. Poor guy lost thousands to the scammers and thousands more to the IRS.
f edinbrief/index.html
If you want to believe this crap, go ahead, I won't try to talk you out of it. But here's some links so you can find out more for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_bank
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/
http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm
And to provide some balance, here's more from the scammers themselves (please take with a HUGE grain of salt):
http://www.fdrs.org/banking_history.html
You don't get the most important concept. There is no such thing as an external scale. There are only internal scales created by internal processes. Thi is a frightening concept for most people to grasp, as it means that not only is everything relative, there is no possibility of an absolute. There is no outside. Think about it, if there were an outside, there would need to be an outside of the outside, and an outside of the outside of the outside, and so on. In fact, as this is an infinite regress, you would never get to the "real" outside, as it is infinitely far away. Every outside is also an inside, right? So there can be no final outside, as every possible outside is also inside something else.
This is a problem with dualistic thinking and dualistic language. You are used to a dualistic way of thinking, and you are used to thinking of the universe in dualistic terms. You can't even begin to think non-dualistically, as every time you begin to you are forced to put your thoughts into dualistic terms. Saying "it's all one" is meaningless: "It" is not "one," that is still dualistic.
A "superverse" is technically possible, but that means one of two things: either it interacts with us, in which case "inside" and "outside" are relative and meaningless terms, or it doesn't interact with us, in which case as far as we are concerned, it doesn't exist. Hope that helps.
The moon HAS NO ATMOSPHERE! What did you expect?
Oh my God, the Stallmans are mounting a counter-attack!
Best. WKRP. ever.
Herbert Kornfeld? I didn't know you posted to /.
Dude, cooperation is the devil. Don't you listen to the capitalists and libertarians? Only pinko commie socialists cooperate. Everyone else tries their damndest to kill or fuck over everything else on the planet. That's the American way.
Can you pay me in vats of flaming bat guano?
The main problem is in breaknig down cellulose. Cellulose is not easy to convert to energy, just look at cows. They require four stomaches, special enzymes and help from bacteria to do it. Most plant matter is cellulose. If we could find a way to break dowen cellulose economically, then any crop would be suitable. Without that, then almost no crops are suitable. As to the land area, there are no crops that produce enough energy to remove this as a concern. We would need to more than double the amount of land we cultivate in order to meet our energy needs.
Are any of these issues insurmountable? Of coursed not. Biofuels are a promising line of reasearch. But they won't, by themselves, solve all our energy concerns.
You have your facts wrong. We've been storing energy by pumping water into reservoirs for a long time. See the post above yours for some links.
"Hey, man, is that Freedom Disk?"
"Yeah, man!"
"Well then boooooot it up, man!"
You are attempting to apply common sense notions to a field where those notions make no sense. Either you have the math to be able to logically figure out why your common sense notions do not apply, or you pretty much have to take it on faith that the theorists are right and the whole notion of "inside/outside" breaks down when we are talking about the universe.
;-)
Think about it this way: inside the universe, everything breaks down into polar opposites. One pair of polar opposites is called "defined/undefined." "Polar opposites" is a defintion. "Outside the universe" is undefined. There are no polar opposites outside the universe. Therefore, there is no outside the universe.
You mean we're all really just a bunch of elves and gnomes sitting around playing a game of "Cubicles & Managers?"
Ever wondered, how to use, commas properly?
That's the kind of password an idiot would have on his electronic luggage!
When I said DeBeers invented the engagement ring, I really meant the diamond engagement ring and I should have been more clear. They also invented the concept of the surprise proposal. Their market research showed that women would rather have a man spend money on a down payment on a home, and so they convinced men not to ask and just buy her the ring. The idea that a man should spend two months salary on a trinket is ridiculous and any woman who hadn't been brainwashed would tell him so.
As to Valentines day, well of course it is traditional but it was never traditional to give pre made greeting cards, chocolate or jewelry. It was always a time when you wrote your sweetheart love poems. But no one could make much money on that, so Hallmark reinvented it here in America as a gift giving holiday.
Dandruff was never seen as an embarassing problem until dandruff shampoo companies concentrated on making people feel bad about having it.
Let me ask you, is a woman at fault for being raped? No? Even if she is wearing provocative clothing? Even if she is alone at night, weak and susceptible? Is a mugging victim at fault for being weak and susceptible? Why would you blame the victim here?
I have given examples above where am advertiser has created a demand for a product by making people feel bad about something they enver felt bad about before. Also, by wasting time that could be spent on relieveing real suffering, advertising promotes suffering. Finally, advertisers have a vested interest in keeping people stupid and easily manipulated and so they will unconsciously play along with all the other powerful people who have similar goals, often in subtle or unconscious ways.
In a fully sane human race, there would be no advertising and the role of getting the word out connecting buyers and sellers would be done by independent reviewers like Consumer Reports. I guess you could call that advertising, in which case I wouldn't deny there is some place for it in a fully sane society. But that is stretching the definition quite a bit.