I remain steadfast in my beliefs that private institutions, as opposed to government institutions, would handle this situation much more to everyone's liking.
Whatever gave you that idea? A government-run school must abide by laws that govern the government, i.e. the Constitution and the First Amendment.
A privately-run school has no such restriction, and can punish students for any reason whatsoever. (I've been there.)
I didn't read any further, and thought I should complain that even if there was a God, It's not listening if your palms aren't pressed together (as that activates the transmitter).
How can we believe a single thing said by a company that is involved with national security?
Follow the money.
If this is a true story, and if the securities analysts pick up on it, expect a dumping of BellSouth stock because there is no money to be made on uncertainty.
Similar to the question, "how can we believe that rape exists in prisons?" The answer is simple: try to give blood.
I am guessing that they are talking about optical observations [...]
Yeah, and here I was hoping (from the ambiguous headline) that researchers were actually searching for intelligence patterns in photons.
Fairly recently (a couple months ago; no longer in my posting history), someone on here and I were discussing converting ourselves into energy. If we could determine a way to make interacting photons, then we could beam ourselves at a patch of empty sky and "live forever", since photons do not experience time. (One of Einstein's revelations of relativity.)
The other's response was that we should use tachyons, as they travel faster than light.
So, that's what was in my head when I read the headline, but it turns out we're just looking for terrestrial life. Oh well.;-)
I never said "little effort". I said "it's not difficult"; what I had hoped the reader would understand as "there are no technical challenges to this implementation."
Then I ended it with "we've just got a lot of momentum behind the current system." I had hoped that the reader would understand this as "there are significant political challenges to this implementation."
I agree that sometimes I do not communicate effectively. I will close with, your projected attitude is not conducive to productive discourse. But it's clear from your projected attitude that this was not your goal, as your words added little value to the discussion, serving only to drag the idea down (and also to cause me to state this position more clearly, which perhaps does help other participants in the discussion, so your added value is greater than zero).
Anti-trust legistation in marital relationships [...]
I actually came up with the concept of a "post-nup" the other day... Then I realized that, for the successful (or imminently successful) spouse to convince the leeching (or imminently leeching) spouse that signing this paper was a good idea, the former would have to basically threaten divorce if the paperwork wasn't signed.
Then that might be seen as "signed under duress."
So the next step was (and this may actually be necessary, as I'm not sure whether boundaries can be put on a marriage which was entered into without boundaries), the parties would obtain a normal divorce, then sign the paperwork, then remarry.
But that just seems... unromantic. Better not to marry in the first place.
They want to turn the natural instinct of any normal human being to protect their children into a tool for domination.
This also turns the natural instinct of genetic preservation on its head. The following is not restricted to humans; it takes place in basically all species which have two sexes, and two stages of development (i.e., species in which females cannot be impregnated immediately after birth).
Males want to procreate with females as soon as the females reach reproductive age.
1 day sooner, and the male has wasted his sperm (and energy, which requires resources like food to replace).
1 day later, and chances are higher that some other competitor has impregnated the female.
Therefore, we humans are drawn to what some people call "pre-pubescent" females. These are actually "pubescent" females as our age of development hasn't changed much in the last 100 years.
One thing that has changed is the growth hormones we feed our livestock, which make it into our children and cause breasts to grow on 9 year olds. This is rather unfortunate: as we modify our laws to raise the legal age of consent, we are also modifying our environment to lower the apparent age of maturity. ("Apparent" is important in the previous sentence.)
I don't know that there's a good answer. Even if you don't have sex, you can still have your life severely fucked via an accusation.
Caching is a fairly developed technology. One could envision a system where the root server almost never gets touched, because all the "second level" servers cache all the requests.
I'm not attempting to define those "second level" servers; that's what the RFC would do. However, it's not necessary to break a string into "groups of characters separated by periods" in order to effectively cache lookups from that string to a group of 4 (or 6) bytes.
Off the top of my head, we could have 26 "second level" servers; each would serve requests of domain names that started with "a", "b", etc.
If one of those got heavily loaded, it could be broken up into 26 more servers each, keying off the second letter in the string. (And of course the "q" and "z" servers would likely be broken up some time after the "e" and "i" servers.)
Stuff like that. It's not difficult, we've just got a lot of momentum behind the current system.
They don't want condom use being taught in school because it will increase teenage sexual activity. They don't want female nipples seen on television because it will encourge children to have sex. They don't want an XXX domain because it will make it easier for children to find porn, which will irreperably damage them somehow.
In addition, they don't want a new vaccine that prevents early stage cervical cancer and cancer lesions caused by HPV infection, because this may encourage teenagers to be more sexually promiscuous.
To restate: they would rather watch teenagers die a horrible death through cancer, than allow teens to bump and grind a little.
Actually, I think the whole concept of TLDs makes no sense. Why not be able to register any string of characters? (Yes, I know, an RFC will be necessary, but it would resolve the issues once and for all.)
And I also know the reason it hasn't been done yet: money. There's a lot of value (for the seller) to be able to sell the same thing, over and over and over again, for no additional expense. "New.food domains! New.travel domains! New.name domains! New.fuck domains! Purchase your name in the new space before someone else does!"
Sounds like, with good credit to start with, you could snowball your way into some serious earning power.
Start with $1,000. Loan it out at 16%. Start getting monthly checks.
Take a loan for $1,000, at 8%. Loan it out at 16%. Get more monthly checks.
Repeat.
The limit is when your credit rating goes so low because of the outstanding loans that you cannot qualify for another loan to reinvest. Or, when scammers take the whole system down through massive defaulting.
Still, seems like a good business model at this moment...
Don't know why you're calling me a loon for asking questions. Do you disagree with building demolition experts, who say that fire cannot cause a building of such construction to fall into tiny pieces that do minimal damage to surrounding buildings? That, in fact, the only time in recorded history for fire to have done so is those three buildings on that one day?
You're absolutely right. There are more dots to connect. What's the easiest way to connect dots? Sticking our collective heads in the sand, or going out and asking questions and obtaining answers that can then be analyzed?
For the government to ignore this data in its public reports makes the populace wonder why the government is saying what it's saying.
It didn't. Indian Lake is not 6 miles from the impact site, as some people would like you to believe. Popular Mechanics has some bits about Flight 93 (continues on next page, too) in their "9/11: Debunking The Myths" article.
This made me think about the few days we had where no planes were in the sky.
To whose benefit was that?
If there was a cover-up, would it not be valuable to have nobody looking down on you during that time? I wonder what satellite photos show, and whether they're classified.
Especially disturbing is the disappearance of all that gold.
You are witnessing the actions of a dictatorial administration consumed with the belief in its own superiority and its own place above the law. Bush believes that as President, he can do anything he wants without regard to the law; he believes himself to be invinceable.
There are only 3 more episodes of "24" this season. Hopefully they'll spend some of them discussing parallels. (Yeah, I know, it's probably too much to hope for.)
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever gave you that idea? A government-run school must abide by laws that govern the government, i.e. the Constitution and the First Amendment.
A privately-run school has no such restriction, and can punish students for any reason whatsoever. (I've been there.)
I didn't read any further, and thought I should complain that even if there was a God, It's not listening if your palms aren't pressed together (as that activates the transmitter).
Follow the money.
If this is a true story, and if the securities analysts pick up on it, expect a dumping of BellSouth stock because there is no money to be made on uncertainty.
Similar to the question, "how can we believe that rape exists in prisons?" The answer is simple: try to give blood.
Yeah, and here I was hoping (from the ambiguous headline) that researchers were actually searching for intelligence patterns in photons.
Fairly recently (a couple months ago; no longer in my posting history), someone on here and I were discussing converting ourselves into energy. If we could determine a way to make interacting photons, then we could beam ourselves at a patch of empty sky and "live forever", since photons do not experience time. (One of Einstein's revelations of relativity.)
The other's response was that we should use tachyons, as they travel faster than light.
So, that's what was in my head when I read the headline, but it turns out we're just looking for terrestrial life. Oh well. ;-)
So ... if TIA really worked, wouldn't they be able to see those PCs calling home?
I never said "little effort". I said "it's not difficult"; what I had hoped the reader would understand as "there are no technical challenges to this implementation."
Then I ended it with "we've just got a lot of momentum behind the current system." I had hoped that the reader would understand this as "there are significant political challenges to this implementation."
I agree that sometimes I do not communicate effectively. I will close with, your projected attitude is not conducive to productive discourse. But it's clear from your projected attitude that this was not your goal, as your words added little value to the discussion, serving only to drag the idea down (and also to cause me to state this position more clearly, which perhaps does help other participants in the discussion, so your added value is greater than zero).
I actually came up with the concept of a "post-nup" the other day... Then I realized that, for the successful (or imminently successful) spouse to convince the leeching (or imminently leeching) spouse that signing this paper was a good idea, the former would have to basically threaten divorce if the paperwork wasn't signed.
Then that might be seen as "signed under duress."
So the next step was (and this may actually be necessary, as I'm not sure whether boundaries can be put on a marriage which was entered into without boundaries), the parties would obtain a normal divorce, then sign the paperwork, then remarry.
But that just seems ... unromantic. Better not to marry in the first place.
This also turns the natural instinct of genetic preservation on its head. The following is not restricted to humans; it takes place in basically all species which have two sexes, and two stages of development (i.e., species in which females cannot be impregnated immediately after birth).
Males want to procreate with females as soon as the females reach reproductive age.
1 day sooner, and the male has wasted his sperm (and energy, which requires resources like food to replace).
1 day later, and chances are higher that some other competitor has impregnated the female.
Therefore, we humans are drawn to what some people call "pre-pubescent" females. These are actually "pubescent" females as our age of development hasn't changed much in the last 100 years.
One thing that has changed is the growth hormones we feed our livestock, which make it into our children and cause breasts to grow on 9 year olds. This is rather unfortunate: as we modify our laws to raise the legal age of consent, we are also modifying our environment to lower the apparent age of maturity. ("Apparent" is important in the previous sentence.)
I don't know that there's a good answer. Even if you don't have sex, you can still have your life severely fucked via an accusation.
Caching is a fairly developed technology. One could envision a system where the root server almost never gets touched, because all the "second level" servers cache all the requests.
I'm not attempting to define those "second level" servers; that's what the RFC would do. However, it's not necessary to break a string into "groups of characters separated by periods" in order to effectively cache lookups from that string to a group of 4 (or 6) bytes.
Off the top of my head, we could have 26 "second level" servers; each would serve requests of domain names that started with "a", "b", etc.
If one of those got heavily loaded, it could be broken up into 26 more servers each, keying off the second letter in the string. (And of course the "q" and "z" servers would likely be broken up some time after the "e" and "i" servers.)
Stuff like that. It's not difficult, we've just got a lot of momentum behind the current system.
As another responder noted, many of us have been looking forward to this for the last 7 years.
It will require a ton of testing. But, I suppose, that's what the army of zombie boxen are there for! ;-)
In addition, they don't want a new vaccine that prevents early stage cervical cancer and cancer lesions caused by HPV infection, because this may encourage teenagers to be more sexually promiscuous.
To restate: they would rather watch teenagers die a horrible death through cancer, than allow teens to bump and grind a little.
And I also know the reason it hasn't been done yet: money. There's a lot of value (for the seller) to be able to sell the same thing, over and over and over again, for no additional expense. "New .food domains! New .travel domains! New .name domains! New .fuck domains! Purchase your name in the new space before someone else does!"
I think one can safely assume that the parties participating will game the system if it's possible.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
It's a great goal. Unfortunately, our administration appears to believe that one cannot shock and awe by teaching.
Miles? Is that you?
Dammit, now I've given them the idea.
Isn't it enough to know that a button was pushed, and the government didn't notice it in their investigation?
That says either incompetence or conspiracy. Either way, it stinks. And we don't need to see a hand to smell the stink.
Start with $1,000. Loan it out at 16%. Start getting monthly checks.
Take a loan for $1,000, at 8%. Loan it out at 16%. Get more monthly checks.
Repeat.
The limit is when your credit rating goes so low because of the outstanding loans that you cannot qualify for another loan to reinvest. Or, when scammers take the whole system down through massive defaulting.
Still, seems like a good business model at this moment...
You're absolutely right. There are more dots to connect. What's the easiest way to connect dots? Sticking our collective heads in the sand, or going out and asking questions and obtaining answers that can then be analyzed?
For the government to ignore this data in its public reports makes the populace wonder why the government is saying what it's saying.
There's a reason. It's purely financial.
See here.
This made me think about the few days we had where no planes were in the sky.
To whose benefit was that?
If there was a cover-up, would it not be valuable to have nobody looking down on you during that time? I wonder what satellite photos show, and whether they're classified.
Especially disturbing is the disappearance of all that gold.
Why didn't the 9/11 Report include that information?
They were doing too good a cover-up job, it seems.
Funny you say that: last night he said he was militarizing our borders to "keep them farners out."
There are only 3 more episodes of "24" this season. Hopefully they'll spend some of them discussing parallels. (Yeah, I know, it's probably too much to hope for.)
Two words: out her.