Some are written by the same scribe. A scribe will not write just one Torah in his lifetime. So proving that a particular scroll was written by a particular scribe does little to prove that it is the scroll in question.
I normally breathe plain old air when I SCUBA dive. Some divers use Nitrox, which is a blend of nitrogen and oxygen.
Plain old air is basically just a blend of nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrox is "Enriched Air" with a higher O2 content created by mixing 100% O2 with air. Becuase O2 becomes toxic at relatively shallow depths, you can dive deeper on air than nitrox, and deeper still by replacing some of the nitrogen with helium. Higher concentrations of o2 are used for shallow decompression.
Given a properly motivated student, I'd put our state system up against the most expensive private schools in the country, and tuition runs a couple of grand each semester. But that's besides the point because a scholarship fund doesn't have to give a free ride. If the money was used to create an endowment, a few grand each year could be given to 5 or 10 students, and the fund could be self-sustaining.
Your observation would be much more interesting, if there wasn't a corresponding benefit to go along with cost. As is pointed out in the article, the UK is one of several countries which's citizens are able to enter the US with no visa, or pre-entry screening. In order for this arrangement to be sustainable, the US and the UK must be able to verify that people who say they are citizens of one country really are who they say they are. It's like when the bouncer at the bar won't accept your out of state DL, because it doesn't look like the one is his book. Tennessee is under no obligation to make their DL's difficult to forge and easy to verify by Texas bouncers, but it is in their best interest to do so.
So, not do you only have the right to fly, technically, it is a violation of your rights to make you present identification.
Bollocks.
Maybe when you finish your freshman 101 classes you can take an advanced class where you learn about the other parts of the Constitution. For example Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, which reads in part:
The judicial power [of the federal courts] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...
Then you might want to familiarize yourself with the federal court decisions from the 1970's to the present day, holding that special circumstances apply at airport screenings, due to the need for security, and the fact that anyone who doesn't want to be searched, doesn't have to fly.
There is no recognized "right to air travel" in the US.
And in spite of that fact, moron hoplophobic murderer Teddy Kennedy continues to insist that these non-existent terrors be banned. Jack would be so proud.
It would seem that the scientists may have had something to do with it's extinction.
First reported in 1862, there are only seven historical records of the plant, the last in 1936, when Bowerman, one of the first women to receive a Ph.D. in botany from UC Berkeley, collected a sample from Mount Diablo.
So the last reported sighting of this plant was 70 years ago when a botanist picked some. And then apparantly didn't extract any seeds, or plant it in a garden. Hoorray for preservation!
This work is being done with adult stem cells, just like all the other useful stem cell research that has been done.
And there are limits to what can be done with the existing stem cell lines.
The limitations on existing lines of embryonic stem cells has no relevance to a discussion of adult stem cells. There are no limitations on adult stem cell research. And adult stem cells just happen to be where all of the succesful stem cell therapies have come from.
Are you willing to go to jail for misplacing a backup tape or having your laptop stolen when you when to freshen your latte and not reporting it to the entire world? That is the provision of the california law.
Actually, the California law only requires notification, and there are only penalties if you fail to notify. In fact, there are ways around notification. If you seperate the data, or you encrypt it, you aren't required to notify anyone when it is compromised.
It isn't usually neccessary to escort your backup tapes everywhere they go (otherwise, you could just store them yourself), but you better make sure that as your agent, the company you use complies with the same laws you are responsible for, and that they indemnify you against any liability resulting from their conduct.
There's a more likely explanation for what you experienced. If the old authoritative servers thought they were still authoritative, they would have continued to answer queries with the old information. Recursive servers that had the NS record cached would go back to the old server until the TTL of the cached NS record was zero. Problem is that in the meantime, each time the recursive server hits the server listed in cached NS record, the server returns the list of old servers as additional information. Thus as long as someone using the recursive DNS server hits something in that zone before the TTL on the NS record expires, the server will never go back to the root for the new NS records.
The solution is to update the zone on the old DNS servers, or remove it completely.
Well, this looks like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Adobe likes the DMCA and even abuses it to protect ROT-13, but suddenly it "prevents" them from serving their customers and they're up in arms.
I don't see any evidence that Adobe is "up in arms." It seems to me that they are respecting what another company sees as that company's IP. The slashdot crowd may be up in arms, but I'm pretty sure that no one here (officially) speaks for Adobe.
Now you are going to have to explain WTF greed has anything to do with the story.
Intuit says they use web bugs to improve the users experience. Those greedy bastards! Wanting to monitor progress on their website so they can identify breakdowns and trouble spots!
Secondly, Intuit says that none of the monitoring bugs collect private information. Maybe you believe them, maybe you don't. But the people who have decided to use their website to prepare their taxes have already made the decision to trust Intuit with this information. They say they aren't abusing that trust. Do you have evidence that they are?
Well this story would be interesting, if it weren't for the fact that people are willingly trusting the companies in question with their personal information. When Intuit asks for your SSN to prepare your return, it isn't exactly covert. If you don't trust them not to disclose it to other companies, then you should probably stop before this step.
Yeah, they use third party web bugs, but they say that they don't send those bugs your private data. If you don't believe them when they say this, see above.
just because a government offers a service does not mean that corporate interests cannot also offer a similar service. the key will be what added values the the corporate interests bring to the table and at what price point.
The gov't will either offer the service for less than it costs, or will make a profit. If the service is free, or priced less than cost, that means it is subsidised by the taxpayer. Since Wi-Fi isn't a public good, there is no reason to offer it as a subsidised service. If the gov't offers the service for a profit, they would be in competition with private enterprise, which just isn't how gov't runs in a capatalist contry. If the US were as socialist republic, that might pass, but we aren't.
and why shouldn't basic wifi access be a public good?
Because it doesn't fit the defintition. Public Wi-Fi is not non-rivalrous, nor is it non-excludable.
lastly, this discussion is about corporate interests making it illegal for a government to act on behalf of its citizens. yay freedom!
Your attempt to apply the concept of freedom to gov't indicates a lack of understanding of the basic principles on which this country is founded. Gov'ts should not be "free". People should.
There's no analogy to roads. Roads are generally considered to be a public good (even though they really aren't). But your analogy is poor anyway, since there are plenty of roads around here built with money raised by selling bonds to private investors, and paid off with tolls. By your logic, the city must own all of the big buildings downtown, because concrete is surely too expensive for anyone but the government. Want to try again?
Not only does business have an interest in seeling government not compete with business, but so do all of us. Unless of course you fancy a soviet lifestyle.
Since the city is not the ISP in that case, it looks like this bill won't affect them. The bill allows cities to provide online access to city services, so that part is also fine.
Notably, it shows how quickly (and without a recorded vote so those of us who live in Texas can't even accuse our representatives of actually supporting this legislation) the bill passed.
There's no recorded vote, because it passed without objection. If you want to know how your rep voted, look at the roll call for that day. If he was there, he voted for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Some are written by the same scribe. A scribe will not write just one Torah in his lifetime. So proving that a particular scroll was written by a particular scribe does little to prove that it is the scroll in question.
I normally breathe plain old air when I SCUBA dive. Some divers use Nitrox, which is a blend of nitrogen and oxygen.
Plain old air is basically just a blend of nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrox is "Enriched Air" with a higher O2 content created by mixing 100% O2 with air. Becuase O2 becomes toxic at relatively shallow depths, you can dive deeper on air than nitrox, and deeper still by replacing some of the nitrogen with helium. Higher concentrations of o2 are used for shallow decompression.
Given a properly motivated student, I'd put our state system up against the most expensive private schools in the country, and tuition runs a couple of grand each semester. But that's besides the point because a scholarship fund doesn't have to give a free ride. If the money was used to create an endowment, a few grand each year could be given to 5 or 10 students, and the fund could be self-sustaining.
Your observation would be much more interesting, if there wasn't a corresponding benefit to go along with cost. As is pointed out in the article, the UK is one of several countries which's citizens are able to enter the US with no visa, or pre-entry screening. In order for this arrangement to be sustainable, the US and the UK must be able to verify that people who say they are citizens of one country really are who they say they are. It's like when the bouncer at the bar won't accept your out of state DL, because it doesn't look like the one is his book. Tennessee is under no obligation to make their DL's difficult to forge and easy to verify by Texas bouncers, but it is in their best interest to do so.
Bollocks.
Maybe when you finish your freshman 101 classes you can take an advanced class where you learn about the other parts of the Constitution. For example Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, which reads in part:Then you might want to familiarize yourself with the federal court decisions from the 1970's to the present day, holding that special circumstances apply at airport screenings, due to the need for security, and the fact that anyone who doesn't want to be searched, doesn't have to fly.
There is no recognized "right to air travel" in the US.
And in spite of that fact, moron hoplophobic murderer Teddy Kennedy continues to insist that these non-existent terrors be banned. Jack would be so proud.
So the last reported sighting of this plant was 70 years ago when a botanist picked some. And then apparantly didn't extract any seeds, or plant it in a garden. Hoorray for preservation!
I think it's hilarious that someone with a link to Cato in his profile is arguing that we should spend more federal money on stem cell research.
Maybe you should read this article.
Who said that?
Did you RTFA? This work is being done with adult stem cells, just like all the other useful stem cell research that has been done.
Have you tried, or are you talking out of your ass?
"Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around."
The difference is that communism can ONLY coexist with statism. USA people enjoy freedom. (In fact, we founded a country on it).
There was a C2 security tool in the Windows NT resource kit.
Are you willing to go to jail for misplacing a backup tape or having your laptop stolen when you when to freshen your latte and not reporting it to the entire world? That is the provision of the california law.
Actually, the California law only requires notification, and there are only penalties if you fail to notify. In fact, there are ways around notification. If you seperate the data, or you encrypt it, you aren't required to notify anyone when it is compromised.
It isn't usually neccessary to escort your backup tapes everywhere they go (otherwise, you could just store them yourself), but you better make sure that as your agent, the company you use complies with the same laws you are responsible for, and that they indemnify you against any liability resulting from their conduct.
There's a more likely explanation for what you experienced. If the old authoritative servers thought they were still authoritative, they would have continued to answer queries with the old information. Recursive servers that had the NS record cached would go back to the old server until the TTL of the cached NS record was zero. Problem is that in the meantime, each time the recursive server hits the server listed in cached NS record, the server returns the list of old servers as additional information. Thus as long as someone using the recursive DNS server hits something in that zone before the TTL on the NS record expires, the server will never go back to the root for the new NS records.
= 1&w=4
The solution is to update the zone on the old DNS servers, or remove it completely.
See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111057230600004&r
Well, this looks like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Adobe likes the DMCA and even abuses it to protect ROT-13, but suddenly it "prevents" them from serving their customers and they're up in arms.
I don't see any evidence that Adobe is "up in arms." It seems to me that they are respecting what another company sees as that company's IP. The slashdot crowd may be up in arms, but I'm pretty sure that no one here (officially) speaks for Adobe.
Now you are going to have to explain WTF greed has anything to do with the story.
Intuit says they use web bugs to improve the users experience. Those greedy bastards! Wanting to monitor progress on their website so they can identify breakdowns and trouble spots!
Secondly, Intuit says that none of the monitoring bugs collect private information. Maybe you believe them, maybe you don't. But the people who have decided to use their website to prepare their taxes have already made the decision to trust Intuit with this information. They say they aren't abusing that trust. Do you have evidence that they are?
Well this story would be interesting, if it weren't for the fact that people are willingly trusting the companies in question with their personal information. When Intuit asks for your SSN to prepare your return, it isn't exactly covert. If you don't trust them not to disclose it to other companies, then you should probably stop before this step.
Yeah, they use third party web bugs, but they say that they don't send those bugs your private data. If you don't believe them when they say this, see above.
just because a government offers a service does not mean that corporate interests cannot also offer a similar service. the key will be what added values the the corporate interests bring to the table and at what price point.
The gov't will either offer the service for less than it costs, or will make a profit. If the service is free, or priced less than cost, that means it is subsidised by the taxpayer. Since Wi-Fi isn't a public good, there is no reason to offer it as a subsidised service. If the gov't offers the service for a profit, they would be in competition with private enterprise, which just isn't how gov't runs in a capatalist contry. If the US were as socialist republic, that might pass, but we aren't.
and why shouldn't basic wifi access be a public good?
Because it doesn't fit the defintition. Public Wi-Fi is not non-rivalrous, nor is it non-excludable.
lastly, this discussion is about corporate interests making it illegal for a government to act on behalf of its citizens. yay freedom!
Your attempt to apply the concept of freedom to gov't indicates a lack of understanding of the basic principles on which this country is founded. Gov'ts should not be "free". People should.
There's no analogy to roads. Roads are generally considered to be a public good (even though they really aren't). But your analogy is poor anyway, since there are plenty of roads around here built with money raised by selling bonds to private investors, and paid off with tolls. By your logic, the city must own all of the big buildings downtown, because concrete is surely too expensive for anyone but the government. Want to try again?
Not only does business have an interest in seeling government not compete with business, but so do all of us. Unless of course you fancy a soviet lifestyle.
Since the city is not the ISP in that case, it looks like this bill won't affect them. The bill allows cities to provide online access to city services, so that part is also fine.
Notably, it shows how quickly (and without a recorded vote so those of us who live in Texas can't even accuse our representatives of actually supporting this legislation) the bill passed.
There's no recorded vote, because it passed without objection. If you want to know how your rep voted, look at the roll call for that day. If he was there, he voted for it.
I think the problem is that people get their "news" from Jon Stewart.
If he's the luckiest person alive, wouldn't he just need one lottery ticket?