And yet, the FSM is merciful. The residents of Dover may yet avert the wrath of His Noodly Appendage if they immediately renounce their wicked ways, head for the seas and take up a life of pious piracy.
Avast ye mateys! Thar be salvation and bounty on the seas!
Not to mention, IIRC, that the average weekly viewership for Firefly was in the 3-4 million range.
Frankly, I think it's a testament to how good the series was that so many people held in there to watch it DESPITE Fox playing the episodes out of order (when they played them at all) in the most abysmal time slot possible. (Late Friday evening. Even geeks have social lives sometimes)
Perhaps he's talking about "The Return of Optimus Prime"...Here's a plot summary of part 1...
Humans using a new experimental metal pilot their ship into the star in which the ship piloted by Optimus Prime is burning up. They recue the body and bring it back to Earth. One of the scientist has a grudge against Prime and Transformers and wants to use him as bait to set the other Autobots up. The scientists discover their ship has been covered in spores that induce hate and plan to use these on the Autobots. Another scientist warns the Autobots of the trap, but she is not informed of the whole plan and the Throttlebots and Aerialbots, as well as many Autobots are infected. The Decepticons arrive, intending to steal the metal, but are themselves infected, except for Galvatron. The infected Transformers go on a rampage, infecting Transformers and humans alike. Rodimus escapes and shuts down Metroplex, but is pursued and infected by Ultra Magnus. Sky Lynx follows his previous orders and captures a Quintesson to rebuild Optimus. They arrive on Earth and Optimus is brought back to life.
In a similar, but probably somewhat more disturbing vein...
"Mandriva announced today that they are merging with search engine provider Google Inc. The combined company will be called Moogle. Said Moogle's new CEO, Mog, 'I believe the merger of these two industry giants will be absolutely *kupo*!'. Representatives of Square Enix were unavailable for commment."
A very similar argument was made by Thomas Babbington Macaulay in a speech to House of Commons in England way back in 1841, when they were considering a bill to extend copyrights to the life of the author plus sixty years.
Macaulay was against this bill and he gave two speeches on the matter. Ultimately, the bill failed by a narrow margin (46% for and 54% against).
jolly_st_nick was kind enough to post the entire text of Macaulay's first speech to Kuro5hin a few years back. Here it is.
My favourite quote comes from near the end:
At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
The man sure knew his stuff. I can't think of a more eloquent way to describe the current state of affairs in the Western world when it comes to the copyright debate.
It is most certainly worth taking the time to read the whole text. The man had a lot of insight into the matter, and most of his arguments (while the language and cultural references are somewhat dated) still apply to this day.
Speaking as a Canadian, I'm fairly sure it'll pass. The Liberals are introducing it, and the Conservatives won't vote against it.
A vote against this bill is a vote against the big media companies...and while we have made significant strides in reforming our campaign funding laws up here, lobbyists still have a disproportionate amount of clout with the major political parties in Ottawa.
Maybe it's just me, but when I look at this monolith of CPU cooling, there's only one quote that pops into my mind, and for some reason, seems strangely appropriate...
"My God, it's full of stars!"
Now if only someone would open this damned airlock...
No, Riker will wake up, turn to Troi and say, "You won't believe it, but I just had the most amazing dream...". It will then pan out to the Enterprise-D and they'll roll the credits.
Nielsen agents will be present in all major cities to measure the collective volume level of the ensuing screams for ratings purposes.
Agreed. I'm an avid Daily Show fan, and the other thing I've noticed is that if you watch the Daily Show coverage of an event, and the actual event coverage itself, they often edit them for maximum comedic value, which tends to over-emphasize certain statements, and/or take them completely out of context (this was particularly obvious with the presidential "debates").
I'm not bashing them for it, because as they're very quick to point out, they ARE a comedy show. (His comment in the interview about the puppets making crank phone calls was brilliant!) I find it's worthwhile to take anything you see on the show with a grain of salt and look into it yourself...Sadly, this is something more people should do when watching the ACTUAL news stations, but that's another rant altogether...
Personally, I'm of the opinion that every law should have an automatic sunset clause included by default with the option of renewal. If it really is an important law, it can and will (and should) be renewed periodically. If not, then it can and will (and should) fall by the wayside, or be ammended and re-passed as a new law.
At the very least, if the politicos had to debate and vote on the old laws, it would keep them busy doing something other than passing new ones!
Dude. You've really got to get out more. You know that big blue room in your house that is sometimes black? I've hidden a +27 Rod of Burnination in there somewhere. If you can find it, it's yours.;)
That is all well and good if a copy of the identification is taken when it is presented. However, how these things typically work is that the security personel ask you for your ID, give it a cursory glance, then ask you to move along. Considering that they view anywhere from 10-500+ of these PER FLIGHT, the chances that they are going to recall the issuing agency, the name and have enough of a recollection of the face for an artists rendering is abysmally small, don't you think?
Now, if we can agree that flashing your ID to a random security guard is a worthless gesture in terms of security, then please explain to me how NOT showing it should automatically warrant an invasive search. From the article, "He claimed in his lawsuit the ID requirement was vague and ineffective and violated his constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures.". Typically the criteria for requiring a search is that the government has probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime. IANAL, but I hardly think a failure to show ID constitutes probable cause.
As I said in my previous post, I could understand the requirement to show ID if there was some means of ensuring that the ID is valid and belongs to the individual showing it. This does not exist. At this point, if investigators want a list of names (real or not) of who was on the plane, they can go to the airline and request a flight roster which lists every passenger's name (real or not).
As for Gilmore's motives, that is another question altogether. While his motives may or may not be as pure as the driven snow, he HAS raised a valid concern which needs to be addressed. Just because someone is grandstanding doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
First of all, there is nothing to stop Jimbo Terrorist from using a fake ID to go with the name that is on the flight roster. Without any method of proving that the ID is valid, your argument that having everyone flash their IDs to an airport employee who likely sees tens of thousands of them every day is meaningless. Knowing that someone saw an ID will not give the authorities any more information than they already have available on the flight roster.
Now if there were a way to actively and instantly verify the authenticity of the ID being shown, then the measure would become more effective at screening out those people using fake IDs. However, due to the wide variety of forms of picture ID, and the lack of actual biometric signatures to tie the ID to the individual and the infrastructure to perform the checks in real time, I can't think of a single compelling reason why people should be required to show their IDs on domestic flights. If you know one, I'd be glad to hear it.
FWIW, EasyDNS has supported adding TXT records to your DNS entry for a few months now.
They're a little more expensive than the other DNS service providers out there, but they provide backup MX servers, and I haven't had a single problem with them in 2 years.
And no, I don't work for them, nor am I a member of their affiliate program.
Indeed. I regularly hack on a piece of software that was built in the early '90s using an ancient dialect of Perl. It's hairy, and it's grotty and it works. If it still works, and continues to meet the needs of the business, there's no reason to replace it.
Indeed. I just set up a Linksys WRT54G router this past weekend, and sure enough, it had the option to disable the SSID broadcast. Strangely enough, it actually seemed to do it, too!
And yes, I was sure to change the default admin password ASAP. First step in configuring the box, really.
Re:Can I smell something ?
on
Directed Sound
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
FWIW, I saw this demonstrated on The Screensavers on TechTV a couple months ago. It seemed to work when they turned it on the studio audience. Only the people that the machine was pointed directly at could hear it. It could have been an elaborate hoax, but then again, so could the Moon Landing...
Slashdot Mirror
Psst! Ixn-eh on the alkingt-eh about the lanp-eh, eh!
Hoser.
And yet, the FSM is merciful. The residents of Dover may yet avert the wrath of His Noodly Appendage if they immediately renounce their wicked ways, head for the seas and take up a life of pious piracy.
Avast ye mateys! Thar be salvation and bounty on the seas!
You actually trust the SONY Aibo?
And don't go trying to sneak in one of those fancy perpetual motion machines, either! If you do that, Maxwell's Demon will eat you!
Not to mention, IIRC, that the average weekly viewership for Firefly was in the 3-4 million range.
Frankly, I think it's a testament to how good the series was that so many people held in there to watch it DESPITE Fox playing the episodes out of order (when they played them at all) in the most abysmal time slot possible. (Late Friday evening. Even geeks have social lives sometimes)
It's a miracle ANYONE knew it even existed.
Taken from http://www.portents.com/marek/transformers/tfepgd
Don't you mean, "gobble, gobble"?
AAAH! Gigli flashback! AAAH! Talk me down, man! Talk me down! Damn you, TubeSteak! Damn you! *twitch* *twitch* *asplode*
In a similar, but probably somewhat more disturbing vein...
"Mandriva announced today that they are merging with search engine provider Google Inc. The combined company will be called Moogle. Said Moogle's new CEO, Mog, 'I believe the merger of these two industry giants will be absolutely *kupo*!'. Representatives of Square Enix were unavailable for commment."
Macaulay was against this bill and he gave two speeches on the matter. Ultimately, the bill failed by a narrow margin (46% for and 54% against).
jolly_st_nick was kind enough to post the entire text of Macaulay's first speech to Kuro5hin a few years back. Here it is.
My favourite quote comes from near the end:
The man sure knew his stuff. I can't think of a more eloquent way to describe the current state of affairs in the Western world when it comes to the copyright debate.
It is most certainly worth taking the time to read the whole text. The man had a lot of insight into the matter, and most of his arguments (while the language and cultural references are somewhat dated) still apply to this day.
Speaking as a Canadian, I'm fairly sure it'll pass. The Liberals are introducing it, and the Conservatives won't vote against it.
A vote against this bill is a vote against the big media companies...and while we have made significant strides in reforming our campaign funding laws up here, lobbyists still have a disproportionate amount of clout with the major political parties in Ottawa.
Wait a year, then order it from the Apple store! Presto chango, x86 Mac! :)
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress. Try the veal.
Bah! Come back to me when you can do it with sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads!
Maybe it's just me, but when I look at this monolith of CPU cooling, there's only one quote that pops into my mind, and for some reason, seems strangely appropriate...
.
"My God, it's full of stars!"
Now if only someone would open this damned airlock..
the MGS4 trailer has me hot in the pants.
Uhm...you might want to see a doctor about that. I hear they've got ointments that can clear that right up.
Just a thought.
No, Riker will wake up, turn to Troi and say, "You won't believe it, but I just had the most amazing dream...". It will then pan out to the Enterprise-D and they'll roll the credits.
Nielsen agents will be present in all major cities to measure the collective volume level of the ensuing screams for ratings purposes.
Will someone remind me what it is the Slashdot editors do?
;)
Who do you think greenlights all the dupes? You can't automate that kind of quality inattention.
Agreed. I'm an avid Daily Show fan, and the other thing I've noticed is that if you watch the Daily Show coverage of an event, and the actual event coverage itself, they often edit them for maximum comedic value, which tends to over-emphasize certain statements, and/or take them completely out of context (this was particularly obvious with the presidential "debates").
I'm not bashing them for it, because as they're very quick to point out, they ARE a comedy show. (His comment in the interview about the puppets making crank phone calls was brilliant!) I find it's worthwhile to take anything you see on the show with a grain of salt and look into it yourself...Sadly, this is something more people should do when watching the ACTUAL news stations, but that's another rant altogether...
Personally, I'm of the opinion that every law should have an automatic sunset clause included by default with the option of renewal. If it really is an important law, it can and will (and should) be renewed periodically. If not, then it can and will (and should) fall by the wayside, or be ammended and re-passed as a new law.
At the very least, if the politicos had to debate and vote on the old laws, it would keep them busy doing something other than passing new ones!
Dude. You've really got to get out more. You know that big blue room in your house that is sometimes black? I've hidden a +27 Rod of Burnination in there somewhere. If you can find it, it's yours. ;)
That is all well and good if a copy of the identification is taken when it is presented. However, how these things typically work is that the security personel ask you for your ID, give it a cursory glance, then ask you to move along. Considering that they view anywhere from 10-500+ of these PER FLIGHT, the chances that they are going to recall the issuing agency, the name and have enough of a recollection of the face for an artists rendering is abysmally small, don't you think?
Now, if we can agree that flashing your ID to a random security guard is a worthless gesture in terms of security, then please explain to me how NOT showing it should automatically warrant an invasive search. From the article, "He claimed in his lawsuit the ID requirement was vague and ineffective and violated his constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures.". Typically the criteria for requiring a search is that the government has probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime. IANAL, but I hardly think a failure to show ID constitutes probable cause.
As I said in my previous post, I could understand the requirement to show ID if there was some means of ensuring that the ID is valid and belongs to the individual showing it. This does not exist. At this point, if investigators want a list of names (real or not) of who was on the plane, they can go to the airline and request a flight roster which lists every passenger's name (real or not).
As for Gilmore's motives, that is another question altogether. While his motives may or may not be as pure as the driven snow, he HAS raised a valid concern which needs to be addressed. Just because someone is grandstanding doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
First of all, there is nothing to stop Jimbo Terrorist from using a fake ID to go with the name that is on the flight roster. Without any method of proving that the ID is valid, your argument that having everyone flash their IDs to an airport employee who likely sees tens of thousands of them every day is meaningless. Knowing that someone saw an ID will not give the authorities any more information than they already have available on the flight roster.
Now if there were a way to actively and instantly verify the authenticity of the ID being shown, then the measure would become more effective at screening out those people using fake IDs. However, due to the wide variety of forms of picture ID, and the lack of actual biometric signatures to tie the ID to the individual and the infrastructure to perform the checks in real time, I can't think of a single compelling reason why people should be required to show their IDs on domestic flights. If you know one, I'd be glad to hear it.
FWIW, EasyDNS has supported adding TXT records to your DNS entry for a few months now.
They're a little more expensive than the other DNS service providers out there, but they provide backup MX servers, and I haven't had a single problem with them in 2 years.
And no, I don't work for them, nor am I a member of their affiliate program.
Indeed. I regularly hack on a piece of software that was built in the early '90s using an ancient dialect of Perl. It's hairy, and it's grotty and it works. If it still works, and continues to meet the needs of the business, there's no reason to replace it.
Indeed. I just set up a Linksys WRT54G router this past weekend, and sure enough, it had the option to disable the SSID broadcast. Strangely enough, it actually seemed to do it, too!
And yes, I was sure to change the default admin password ASAP. First step in configuring the box, really.
FWIW, I saw this demonstrated on The Screensavers on TechTV a couple months ago. It seemed to work when they turned it on the studio audience. Only the people that the machine was pointed directly at could hear it. It could have been an elaborate hoax, but then again, so could the Moon Landing...