But you'd want some punitive damages in the big guy SLAPPing little guy case, surely? I would. Otherwise the big guys have no incentive to stop being frivolous.
DALEK: Stop! I can hear you. I have heard many similar words... from leaders of your different races. All of them were destroyed. I warn you: resistance is useless.
Having said that, the Cybermen seem more keen on the phrase than the Daleks:
phil@geespaz:Who$ grep -i "resistance is" *.html 010-2-The_Daleks.html: I warn you: resistance is useless. 010-2-The_Daleks.html: DOCTOR: Resistance is useless? 029-4-The_Tenth_Planet_4.html: KRANG: Further resistance is useless. 033-4-The_Moonbase_4.html:resistance is useless. 033-4-The_Moonbase_4.html:CYBERMAN: (OOV) Resistance is usele... 033-4-The_Moonbase_4.html:CYBERMAN: (OOV: over radio) Resistance is useless.
But don't you remember when the 3rd fastest cluster in the world according to the top-500 list was made from Macs without ECC? (A uni in Vermont?)
Of course you do. All us cynics remember the computer that never computed a single reliable result in its entire existence. (And that includes its benchmark run, IIRC.)
And "were" isn't singularly "correct" either. One is not obliged to use the subjunctive mood wherever it's fitting. If it was used everywhere it's possible to use it, then the English language would look and sound very strange indeed. Personally, I like it, and I use it a lot, but I still probably only use it a quarter of the number of times that I could.
Ditto, it simply made no sense. I'm surprised it grew at all, let alone to the size that it did. Yet some people (greedy ponzi speculators?) thought it was worth floating the company on the public stock market. (And 90% of its "value" went down the pipes within a year.) Everyone involved in that IPO should be taken out and flogged.
And does nobody remember the GIF of death? (e.g. a 65535x65535 blank gif, so a relatively small file as it compresses incredibly well. And if a browser adds sanity checks for huge sizes, just make the GIF size 1 pixel less than the cut-off, duh!)
Of course, you highlight another potential DOS - in the scenario you mention, one site can reduce the quota available to another subdomain, as they share it. It's a lose-lose situation: permit DOSing the user, or permit DOSing other sites on the same 2LD.
Let's hope they understand how CCTLDs are organised. I don't like the idea of every site under *.co.uk sharing the same 5MB. When they specified cookies, they fucked up, I dont trust them to have learnt from their mistakes and got HTML5 correct, far from it.
> I realize this is/., but did you not even read the first sentence of the summary?
> > Astronomers have directly measured the spin of a black hole for the first time
Don't stop there - it continues:
"... by detecting the mind-bending relativistic effects that warp space-time at the very edge of its event horizon."
So they measured a property of something which is *nowhere near* the black hole. The event horizon isn't the black hole, you know. They've not *directly* measured any property of the black hole itself. Just think about it for 1 moment - they were detecting X-rays. You don't get any X-rays from the black hole itself.
It's a dreadfully worded article, they seem to bounce between the black hole and its event horizon on a whim, not understanding that the two are not interchangeable concepts.
Then again, it's not the best science in the universe either. They gathered the data and interpreted noisy results in order to confirm an expectation: "It was my expectation, and the main scientific rationale for the project. Of course many colleagues would rather expect absorption as the right explanation... but the whole project has been conceived to solve this puzzle," I.e. there no attempt to falsify the theory, only an attempt to confirm it.
It only becomes good science when the guys who expected absorbtion confirm their results.
It's simple newtonian physics, that you could teach a ten-year-old. If that gives you brain problems, then your brain already had problems.
You cannot change a part of an orbit. If you change the orbit, you change the whole orbit to be a different orbit. (See GPP's follow up to me where he admits that, clearly in contradiction to his prior "[it] just makes [the single aspect change]" nonsense.)
Ah, you hark back to the glory days of 60s bubblegum pop, eh?
I'm really not so sure that pop is much worse today than before. It's easier to forget most of the the crap, and that distorts our recollection of the past. (However, I'm not well equipped to speak from detailed knowledge, I've not followed "pop" for over 2 decades.)
Well, what would Nash say? It all depends on the costs, risks, and pay-offs. With Pascal's wager, it's pretty clear, blindingly obvious in fact, to an ignostic such as myself, that there's a nett loss in being a god-botherer. For adoption of non-fossil-fuel energy sources, the figures aren't just completely different from the Pascal's wager case, we also know that the costs aren't constant, as the cost for clearly finite resources will eventually exceed that of renewables.
"A household is considered to be in fuel poverty if more than 10% of its income is spent on home heating."
Hmmm, I guess about 10% goes on taxes/rates. 15% goes on shopping for consumables. 20% goes on energy. About 20% goes to restaurants, and about 30% goes to fancy downtown pubs for fancy imported beers.
So clearly I'm massively into "fuel poverty". And considering I live in a poor ex-Soviet country that must be way worse than those poor rich Brits. I'll make sure I remember to think of all those Brits in "fuel poverty" next time I'm cracking open a nice bottle of Ola Dubh down the pub. Sorry, what I meant was whilst I'm sobbing into my Ola Dubh as I despair how dreadful my "fuel poverty" lifestyle is.
Slashdot Mirror
But you'd want some punitive damages in the big guy SLAPPing little guy case, surely? I would. Otherwise the big guys have no incentive to stop being frivolous.
Indeed. I'd love to know what I need to say in order to get me signed up for one of these things.
What happened to the good old-fashioned google-bomb? Is that deemed passe now?
You'll be saying playing a game of whack-a-mole achieves nothing next!
Objection - assumption of facts not in evidence.
Viz.: existence of brain; oxygen-requiring activity of brain.
Dalekium, even.
/The Dalek Invasion of Earth/, episode 2 /The Daleks/
010 (production code k)
DALEK: Stop! I can hear you. I have heard many similar words... from leaders of your different races. All of them were destroyed. I warn you: resistance is useless.
Having said that, the Cybermen seem more keen on the phrase than the Daleks:
phil@geespaz:Who$ grep -i "resistance is" *.html
010-2-The_Daleks.html: I warn you: resistance is useless.
010-2-The_Daleks.html: DOCTOR: Resistance is useless?
029-4-The_Tenth_Planet_4.html: KRANG: Further resistance is useless.
033-4-The_Moonbase_4.html:resistance is useless.
033-4-The_Moonbase_4.html:CYBERMAN: (OOV) Resistance is usele...
033-4-The_Moonbase_4.html:CYBERMAN: (OOV: over radio) Resistance is useless.
Vogonium, surely?
Well, these events are causative, but these triggering events aren't necessarily /sine qua non/.
proximal/immediate cause(s): assasination of FF; 9/11
distal/ultimate cause(s): decades of history; decades of history
> And what can you do on Linux that you can't do on OS X?
Run natively on non-proprietory hardware.
You didn't love them enough to buy one though?
I got 8 good years out of my DEC Alpha, before my electricity provider nuked my entire server room (yes, yes, it even blew up my UPS).
Why FreeBSD - why not just be mainstream:
phil@geespaz:tmp$ uname -a
Linux geespaz 2.6.32-5-powerpc64 #1 SMP Sun May 6 05:10:56 UTC 2012 ppc64 GNU/Linux
Ascribing all of the profit for a whole device to the CPU is pure nonsense.
But don't you remember when the 3rd fastest cluster in the world according to the top-500 list was made from Macs without ECC? (A uni in Vermont?)
Of course you do. All us cynics remember the computer that never computed a single reliable result in its entire existence. (And that includes its benchmark run, IIRC.)
Because it was said by someone in marketting?
If only it could print a gun so that they could kill themselves.
And "were" isn't singularly "correct" either. One is not obliged to use the subjunctive mood wherever it's fitting. If it was used everywhere it's possible to use it, then the English language would look and sound very strange indeed. Personally, I like it, and I use it a lot, but I still probably only use it a quarter of the number of times that I could.
Ditto, it simply made no sense. I'm surprised it grew at all, let alone to the size that it did. Yet some people (greedy ponzi speculators?) thought it was worth floating the company on the public stock market. (And 90% of its "value" went down the pipes within a year.) Everyone involved in that IPO should be taken out and flogged.
And does nobody remember the GIF of death? (e.g. a 65535x65535 blank gif, so a relatively small file as it compresses incredibly well. And if a browser adds sanity checks for huge sizes, just make the GIF size 1 pixel less than the cut-off, duh!)
Of course, you highlight another potential DOS - in the scenario you mention, one site can reduce the quota available to another subdomain, as they share it. It's a lose-lose situation: permit DOSing the user, or permit DOSing other sites on the same 2LD.
Let's hope they understand how CCTLDs are organised. I don't like the idea of every site under *.co.uk sharing the same 5MB. When they specified cookies, they fucked up, I dont trust them to have learnt from their mistakes and got HTML5 correct, far from it.
> I realize this is /., but did you not even read the first sentence of the summary?
... but the whole project has been conceived to solve this puzzle,"
> > Astronomers have directly measured the spin of a black hole for the first time
Don't stop there - it continues:
"... by detecting the mind-bending relativistic effects that warp space-time at the very edge of its event horizon."
So they measured a property of something which is *nowhere near* the black hole. The event horizon isn't the black hole, you know. They've not *directly* measured any property of the black hole itself. Just think about it for 1 moment - they were detecting X-rays. You don't get any X-rays from the black hole itself.
It's a dreadfully worded article, they seem to bounce between the black hole and its event horizon on a whim, not understanding that the two are not interchangeable concepts.
Then again, it's not the best science in the universe either. They gathered the data and interpreted noisy results in order to confirm an expectation:
"It was my expectation, and the main scientific rationale for the project. Of course many colleagues would rather expect absorption as the right explanation
I.e. there no attempt to falsify the theory, only an attempt to confirm it.
It only becomes good science when the guys who expected absorbtion confirm their results.
What "contract"? For example, what consideration was involved in this "contract"?
It's simple newtonian physics, that you could teach a ten-year-old. If that gives you brain problems, then your brain already had problems.
You cannot change a part of an orbit. If you change the orbit, you change the whole orbit to be a different orbit. (See GPP's follow up to me where he admits that, clearly in contradiction to his prior "[it] just makes [the single aspect change]" nonsense.)
No, it is what you wrote. Or do you not understand what the word "just" means?
Ah, you hark back to the glory days of 60s bubblegum pop, eh?
I'm really not so sure that pop is much worse today than before. It's easier to forget most of the the crap, and that distorts our recollection of the past. (However, I'm not well equipped to speak from detailed knowledge, I've not followed "pop" for over 2 decades.)
Yes, but you appear to have forgotten that the only way you can control demand for energy is if your model consists of spherical people in a vacuum.
Well, what would Nash say? It all depends on the costs, risks, and pay-offs. With Pascal's wager, it's pretty clear, blindingly obvious in fact, to an ignostic such as myself, that there's a nett loss in being a god-botherer. For adoption of non-fossil-fuel energy sources, the figures aren't just completely different from the Pascal's wager case, we also know that the costs aren't constant, as the cost for clearly finite resources will eventually exceed that of renewables.
"A household is considered to be in fuel poverty if more than 10% of its income is spent on home heating."
Hmmm, I guess about 10% goes on taxes/rates. 15% goes on shopping for consumables. 20% goes on energy. About 20% goes to restaurants, and about 30% goes to fancy downtown pubs for fancy imported beers.
So clearly I'm massively into "fuel poverty". And considering I live in a poor ex-Soviet country that must be way worse than those poor rich Brits. I'll make sure I remember to think of all those Brits in "fuel poverty" next time I'm cracking open a nice bottle of Ola Dubh down the pub. Sorry, what I meant was whilst I'm sobbing into my Ola Dubh as I despair how dreadful my "fuel poverty" lifestyle is.