True, but more from the DMCA, NET Act, Broadcast Flag 2 (MPAA will try to get the law changed to let the FCC succeed this time), use of RICO outside of mafia cases, GPS tracking of people, massive databases, tracking people using EZ-Pass, etc through tool boths and the War on (Some) Drugs than from airport security.
I got ent through secondary screening. Cost: ~5 minutes.
Even the whole security line was only an hour or so.
Getting to the airport, dealing with the fact there is no decent parking, no decent transit to the airport, crazy fare schemes (Southwest is great for price - but they got a billion different fare types to decipher the conditions of - can it be refunded, rescheduled, what if you miss the plane due to yet another traffic accident etc along the way to the airport), dealing with weight, size and quantity limits of carry on bags, etc is FAR more hassle.
As acids, won't they cause the body to try to buffer them. Using a handy source of alkali, such as one's bones? Perhaps one could avoid that by making very sure to have enough alkali minerals (K, Ca, Mg).
Calmed brain cells might mean less creativity, or more depression or something. Alcohol calms brain cells too.:)
If it has the benefits of anti-epileptic meds, it might also have their detriments.
I'd rather have long term and medium term effects of radar than those of being blown up or crashing into a building.
Those kill.
NO REPUTIBLE SOURCE WHATSOEVER has EVER alleged that airport screening has killed anyone.
September 11, 2001 killed thousands.
Thousands to zero, hard risk judgement that is.
And as for the stupid comment about someone not wanting their "beautiful" wife or daughter being seen trhough their clothes - would he rather BURY his "beautiful" wife and daugther because they died in a terrorist attack?
Ok, I was off base with that one. There would probably be nothing to bury.
As for anyone, gay or not getting off on seeing me in a radar unit, I just don't care. Big deal. Actually I do care if they are distracted - not because I am sensitive. If I arrive alive is the damn point.
If you are that paranoid or sensitive, DRIVE or stay home. Planes are targets. We are at war. We have to make some minor sacrifices. Back in World War II they dealt with gas rationing, FOOD rationing (we can't even imagine that nowadays) and unavailability of many consumer and luxury goods and recreation, but they took it in stride. While we whine about airport screeners!
We are such a whinging nation of crybabies. The previous generations must be spinning in their graves. Home of the Brave? Not recently. We are afraid of grams of fat and carbs, slightly offensive sayings or posters (political correctness), milliliters of alcohol, and even the Sun! If all these things were as bad as we make them out of be everyone would be dying of disease and suicide before they reach 35.
Back to airports:
I had them do the shoe test on me when I last flew. Oh golly, I'm so damn oppressed!
NOT!
Let's save our time, energy and credibility on civil liberties issues on things like stopping the DMCA, software patents, and other overzealous intellectual "property" laws, and the failed War on (Some) Drugs.
Not on legitimate efforts of the government to keep us safe.
You talk about the Constitution? Read the Preamble. National Defense (we are at war) and General Welfare (not getting blown up or smashed into a building or crushed in a building) are legitimate goals of government.
No (or ineffective) gov't = anarchy. Read Lord of the Flies or look at the undeveloped (not developing, UNDEVELOPED and stagnating, yeah I said it) world to see what that is like.
Look at Russia. People getting blown up and shot even in schools. Want that? If so, then go! You'll only have to deal with airport security one more time - think you can handle that?
Before anyone says I am anti-liberties, check out my anti-DMCA posts and call for sanity in intellectual property laws.
And why is this in Your Rights Online? An airport is not online (OK it might have WiFi but that ain't the point). If we want a general civil liberties category let's make one. And be sensible about it.
You get a lot of exercise dodging the psychos when you ride the bus.
Bus: An insane asylum on wheels.
#4
It's OK to code while drunk. Just work on X and not the kernel when you do so. You can't make it any worse - heck X already crashes my PC regularily as it is. What's it going to do - make it catch on fire? Oh wait, that's happened to some other people.
#7
Use your skills to make money to buy the bling-bling that gets you the honeys. Forget that, just use the money to buy more alcohol and upgrade your PC's - it will be cheaper and you'll be happier in the long run.
Edison was also an anti-Semite, an arrogent conceited jerk and liked to take credit for other's ideas.
Also Edison may have invented the light bulb, but he did it, and had his patents protected by the work of Lewis Latimer, an African-American who later improved upon Edison's original invention.
Also, Edison thought DC power was the way to go - but was proven wrong (Tesla's AC power was abetter solution, but Westinghouse gets all the credit, and everyone forgets and ridicules Tesla - history is not fair). Nowadays the only DC power distribution systems are for rail applications.
Following a 302 and using the resulting page in the index would be breaking spec.
If I give you a URL and it 302 redirects somewhere, and tomorrow I change the redirect, remove the old redirected to page (assuming it is all on my site) and put a new one where the new 302 points to - your links will get broken if you threw out the original URL and kept where it (originally) pointed to.
E.g.
a ---(302)---> b
I give out URL a.
Then, I change where a points
a ---(302)---> c
deleting b and creating c at the same time.
If you keep using URL a like you are supposed to, you are OK. If you treated "a" as a 301 and kept URL b, you now get a bad URL.
Now one could say treat 302 as a 301 if it crosses sites. This would stop most 302 Google poisonings, but what if I have multiple domains and I am doing something legitimate (e.g. make topicsubtopic.com point to topic.com/subtopic until I make topicsubtopic its own independant site). In which case it would hurt me. Or treat a 302 normally, but treat it as a 301 if the destination page is reachable via a non-redirect link. (people could make links to 302 destinations then and break things). Of course one could decide to treat a 302 normally, unless something on the same domain points directly at the 302 destination. So if site A 302 redirects to a page on site B, as long as site B itself has a non-redirection link to that page - then Google could treat the 302 as hostile (throwing it out or treating it as a 301). But domain level assumptions are bad - 2 unrelated entities can share a domain, and 2 separate domains can be controlled by one (or cooperating) entities.
One could also create a new meta tag that means I allow the following pages/domains/etc to 302 redirect to me - if it is not there - Google could treat the 302 as a 301 or not index it. That would be the cleanest solution I think.
Eventually we will win over all you terrorists, drug dealers, illegal gamblers, child pornographers, file traders, extortionists and other assorted riff-raff.
The Patriot Act doesn't go nearly far enough.
Just wait until we pass the Securing America via Federal Enforcement (SAFE) Act and the National Operations againt Criminal Racketeering on the Internet and in Multi-user Environments (NO CRIME) Act.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a chance a given child will be the next Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pot Pol, Jeffery Dahmer, or Charles Manson.
Have them do like IPv6: 128 bits
Issues up to:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455
Is Monsanto doing the moderation here or what?
re #1. I meant the terror attack in Russia where the were hostages taken, then some were shot, then Russia stormed the place.
True, but more from the DMCA, NET Act, Broadcast Flag 2 (MPAA will try to get the law changed to let the FCC succeed this time), use of RICO outside of mafia cases, GPS tracking of people, massive databases, tracking people using EZ-Pass, etc through tool boths and the War on (Some) Drugs than from airport security.
I got ent through secondary screening. Cost: ~5 minutes.
Even the whole security line was only an hour or so.
Getting to the airport, dealing with the fact there is no decent parking, no decent transit to the airport, crazy fare schemes (Southwest is great for price - but they got a billion different fare types to decipher the conditions of - can it be refunded, rescheduled, what if you miss the plane due to yet another traffic accident etc along the way to the airport), dealing with weight, size and quantity limits of carry on bags, etc is FAR more hassle.
A /64 is 1.84e+19 IPs /48 is 1.21e+24 IPs
/64.
A
So he likely meant a
Still, that is more than enough.
Heck I could have an IP address for every cell in my body and still be barely using the address space.
2**64 is a huge number.
First world is a misnomer.
It was originally like this:
Old World: Europe
New World: US/Canada
Third World: the rest
The true first world would be Europe.
Of course, the above is not very PC or useful now.
Oh, you are an atheist. Never mind.
Not just electrocuting cats, but even people:
The electric chair (using AC) was pushed by DC power supporters to make AC look bad.
Everything but Fox is very anti-government. Especially PBS.
At least when it comes to the war.
They love gov't when it comes to taxes.
As acids, won't they cause the body to try to buffer them. Using a handy source of alkali, such as one's bones? Perhaps one could avoid that by making very sure to have enough alkali minerals (K, Ca, Mg).
:)
Calmed brain cells might mean less creativity, or more depression or something. Alcohol calms brain cells too.
If it has the benefits of anti-epileptic meds, it might also have their detriments.
An all natural Depakote or the like.
I'd rather have long term and medium term effects of radar than those of being blown up or crashing into a building.
Those kill.
NO REPUTIBLE SOURCE WHATSOEVER has EVER alleged that airport screening has killed anyone.
September 11, 2001 killed thousands.
Thousands to zero, hard risk judgement that is.
And as for the stupid comment about someone not wanting their "beautiful" wife or daughter being seen trhough their clothes - would he rather BURY his "beautiful" wife and daugther because they died in a terrorist attack?
Ok, I was off base with that one. There would probably be nothing to bury.
As for anyone, gay or not getting off on seeing me in a radar unit, I just don't care. Big deal. Actually I do care if they are distracted - not because I am sensitive. If I arrive alive is the damn point.
If you are that paranoid or sensitive, DRIVE or stay home. Planes are targets. We are at war. We have to make some minor sacrifices. Back in World War II they dealt with gas rationing, FOOD rationing (we can't even imagine that nowadays) and unavailability of many consumer and luxury goods and recreation, but they took it in stride. While we whine about airport screeners!
We are such a whinging nation of crybabies. The previous generations must be spinning in their graves. Home of the Brave? Not recently. We are afraid of grams of fat and carbs, slightly offensive sayings or posters (political correctness), milliliters of alcohol, and even the Sun! If all these things were as bad as we make them out of be everyone would be dying of disease and suicide before they reach 35.
Back to airports:
I had them do the shoe test on me when I last flew. Oh golly, I'm so damn oppressed!
NOT!
Let's save our time, energy and credibility on civil liberties issues on things like stopping the DMCA, software patents, and other overzealous intellectual "property" laws, and the failed War on (Some) Drugs.
Not on legitimate efforts of the government to keep us safe.
You talk about the Constitution? Read the Preamble. National Defense (we are at war) and General Welfare (not getting blown up or smashed into a building or crushed in a building) are legitimate goals of government.
No (or ineffective) gov't = anarchy. Read Lord of the Flies or look at the undeveloped (not developing, UNDEVELOPED and stagnating, yeah I said it) world to see what that is like.
Look at Russia. People getting blown up and shot even in schools. Want that? If so, then go! You'll only have to deal with airport security one more time - think you can handle that?
Before anyone says I am anti-liberties, check out my anti-DMCA posts and call for sanity in intellectual property laws.
And why is this in Your Rights Online? An airport is not online (OK it might have WiFi but that ain't the point). If we want a general civil liberties category let's make one. And be sensible about it.
Hopefully he recovered without permanent damage.
Some people get multiple sclerosis from it and/or other permanent diseases instead.
Sleep on the bus?
You'd be safer sleeping while driving!
(slight, but only slight exaggeration)
#2
You get a lot of exercise dodging the psychos when you ride the bus.
Bus: An insane asylum on wheels.
#4
It's OK to code while drunk. Just work on X and not the kernel when you do so. You can't make it any worse - heck X already crashes my PC regularily as it is. What's it going to do - make it catch on fire? Oh wait, that's happened to some other people.
#7
Use your skills to make money to buy the bling-bling that gets you the honeys. Forget that, just use the money to buy more alcohol and upgrade your PC's - it will be cheaper and you'll be happier in the long run.
(just kidding about #7)
Edison was also an anti-Semite, an arrogent conceited jerk and liked to take credit for other's ideas.
Also Edison may have invented the light bulb, but he did it, and had his patents protected by the work of Lewis Latimer, an African-American who later improved upon Edison's original invention.
Also, Edison thought DC power was the way to go - but was proven wrong (Tesla's AC power was abetter solution, but Westinghouse gets all the credit, and everyone forgets and ridicules Tesla - history is not fair). Nowadays the only DC power distribution systems are for rail applications.
Asprin doesn't make you happy though.
Plus a LOT of people are allergic to asprin.
All you have is your anti-Christian bigotry and sig about weapons of mass destruction.
They existed - Saddam destroyed them when he knew he was going to be invaded. This is fact.
Ketones make the brain run slower.
That's why ketogenic diets help epileptics.
Us Geeks stopped worshipping Linus after the Bit Keeper fiasco.
Not to say we are all haters now, just that we see him as having both a good side and a not-so-good side, kinda like the kernel itself.
302 redirects are temporary, 301 is permanent.
Following a 302 and using the resulting page in the index would be breaking spec.
If I give you a URL and it 302 redirects somewhere, and tomorrow I change the redirect, remove the old redirected to page (assuming it is all on my site) and put a new one where the new 302 points to - your links will get broken if you threw out the original URL and kept where it (originally) pointed to.
E.g.
a ---(302)---> b
I give out URL a.
Then, I change where a points
a ---(302)---> c
deleting b and creating c at the same time.
If you keep using URL a like you are supposed to, you are OK. If you treated "a" as a 301 and kept URL b, you now get a bad URL.
Now one could say treat 302 as a 301 if it crosses sites. This would stop most 302 Google poisonings, but what if I have multiple domains and I am doing something legitimate (e.g. make topicsubtopic.com point to topic.com/subtopic until I make topicsubtopic its own independant site). In which case it would hurt me. Or treat a 302 normally, but treat it as a 301 if the destination page is reachable via a non-redirect link. (people could make links to 302 destinations then and break things). Of course one could decide to treat a 302 normally, unless something on the same domain points directly at the 302 destination. So if site A 302 redirects to a page on site B, as long as site B itself has a non-redirection link to that page - then Google could treat the 302 as hostile (throwing it out or treating it as a 301). But domain level assumptions are bad - 2 unrelated entities can share a domain, and 2 separate domains can be controlled by one (or cooperating) entities.
One could also create a new meta tag that means I allow the following pages/domains/etc to 302 redirect to me - if it is not there - Google could treat the 302 as a 301 or not index it. That would be the cleanest solution I think.
Well, they'd have to compromise both DNS and the SSL certificate (online banking is all with SSL).
Very few criminal organizations could pull that off.
Heck, the only people who could pull that off are NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. And if they are after you, you are in a world of hurt anyway.
Eventually we will win over all you terrorists, drug dealers, illegal gamblers, child pornographers, file traders, extortionists and other assorted riff-raff.
The Patriot Act doesn't go nearly far enough.
Just wait until we pass the
Securing America via Federal Enforcement (SAFE) Act and the
National Operations againt Criminal Racketeering on the Internet and in Multi-user Environments (NO CRIME) Act.
It's coming boys and girls, it's coming.
Coming next "Das Database" with no information storage.
Oh wait, it's called MySQL.