Logo's on t-shirts and billboards are not the same. It only takes an instant to move your eyes away from it.....
They must be using models from the ugly tree corp of America in your area then either that or their not your type. Personally being distracted in the the first place is the annoying thing not how long it takes me to look away.
Spam costs you 'nothing' because you are unknowingly funding filtering and blocking of spam.
Spam costs me 'nothing' because I register to a million and one mailing lists that I have to filter through anyway, the extra bit of filtering for spam is negligible, I also have a private email address that I give to very few people so I can always get to my important email without any excess cost. This was also the case when I was running my own private mail server without any filtering (except possibly my ISP blocking a few IP addresses from it's network)
It's not just 'mailing list' anymore, for instance Experian sell more demographic and other data than you could possibly imagine and stores like WallMart and Tesco hold and sell a huge amount of information often about individual people. That data is readily sold to advertisers (and anyone else who wants it) and it more-or-less works out as a tax being charged by the data providers that ends up costing the customer in a nnumber of ways mostly relating to freedom of choice.
Considering 1/3rd of the Simpsons is typically commercials I'd think its safe to say thats quite a bit more than in the past.
and that 1/3 costs you, when you buy a product from the advertiser you pay for the add, and when you watch TV it takes up your time and time is also money. Spam costs me a negligible amount of money and hardly any time at all.
Maybe all companies should be charged (taxed) for data and advertising stopping spam from being so profitable and stopping companies from readily exchanging data about people.
I pay advertising costs whenever I buy a product, and the use of Krapple Mac's and other obvious product placements often spoils the whole file for which I've payed a good £6 ($8.5) to see. Flashing and changing bill boards also waste my time, and time is money, so really there's little cost difference between spam and other ads.
giving spam an air of legitimacy And TV, Billboard, Radio , Film and Hommy Tilfiger Logos on cloths don't have exactly the same effect?
I'm not saying I support spam, just that spam is another form of advertising. If other forms of advertising come unsolicited from companies. Why is spam any worse than someone wearing a krappa t-shirt, drinking a can of Koke and eating a MukDonalds, why is spam any worse than traditional junk mail?
'He's not looking to build his own space elevators or nanotubes, he just wants to know whats up in the news.' and so is everybody else.
If every 'a bug has been found in the kernel' story amounted to the diff to fix the bug then it would be fairly useless to the majority of people who care about bugs in the kernel. If some is interested about the exact cause of the bug then a simple story is enough for them to start looking on the kernel mailing list to identify the patch.
So long as the story doesn't amount to gross missinformation then I don't see a need for everyday media to be aimed at anyone with the mental age above 10 years old.
Joe sixpack doesn't need to know what 'normalized' is, all he has to know is that something has been done to the weight and normalized suggests that it's kinda normal.
You'd be supprized at the number of people who use weight to mean mass (and probably never use the word mass) and on earth it's just about normalized (weight = mass * G and G ~= 0.96?) so it doesn't matter too much anyway.
WTF is Strength normalized to weight? Specific strength is the term they are looking for, second it is normalized to mass, not weight.
Maybe they were trying to target a nonscientific audience. To Joe sixpack Specific strength means nothing, and weight is the same thing as mass(assuming Joe has a vaguely idea about what the word mass means)
There are two key stages of HIV infection, the first is where the HIV virus hijacks a white blood cell to gain entry into other cells, the second is the retro virus bit where it merges with the DNA. I think that the crock cure may work very well on the first stage.
There is nothing in the article to suggest that they have isolated the specific component that kills HIV, let alone determined that it is safe for human injection.
To the contrary there's everything to suggest that there a specific component/s that kill HIV.
Do you know how they make anti-venom?
They poison a horse with the snakes venom, the horse makes antibodies to the venom, after a while you drain the blood from a horse, separate out the red blood cells (leaving a serum). The serum can then be given to humans when they are bitten by a snake and the horse antibodies kill off the venom.
I should imagine that exactly the same thing is going to be done with the crocks, except they are worried that the crock antibodies may kill of humans too. (Crocks have been around since the dinosaurs so you'd expect them to have a good immune system, I wonder what the immune system of scorpions is like?)
You should be able to pickup a spectrum or BBC or C64 quite cheaply, my younger brothers and sisters got a huge amount just typing in code listings and running them.
It just happens that gambling is typically a bad risk.... If you try and make stupidity illegal, you'll never want for laws.
Would you like to live in a world where you have to second guess all companies because their trying to screw you out of as much money as possible, or one where companies where honest and responsible.
I would expect that it is the view of the Austrailian government that gambling is never as honest of as responsible as it should be, and any Advertising is bad and dishonest so they ban it.
I think it would be wonderfull world if politicians never lied and companies were responsible and truthfull, but it's never going to happen. Sometimes legislation preventing an activity from being promoted (whilst not actually preventing the activity itself) is a step in the right direction.
A while ago I heard about an interesting project to screw all those loyalty/tracking cards you get for shopping. The idea is to swap cards with someone else every so often so that their data gets completely screwed up.
Could something similar be done with cookies to rm -rf the data recorded by the personal data collectors, bugmenot is about as closest thing I've found to cookie swapping.
A crash, although it may open one up to attack, cannot be exploited without alerting the user to a problem.
Crashes usually happen because of one of two things, an attempt to read a block of memory out of range, or an attempt to execute code in a block of memory out of range.
They are commonly caused by either, uninitilised pointers or buffer over or underruns modifying the data in the pointers.
in the first case it's very hard to exploit the crash, but it's certainly possible that it could be exploited, the expolit would relly on the uninitlised pointer pointing to an old block of ram that hasn't been cleared.
in the second case it's still difficult but a little easier since you can directly manipulate the memory that the appication has access to.
Both types of exploit would cause the the firefox process to seemlessly execute code inserted by a probably malicious party. A crash will not occure because the old random pointers and data now point to the inserted code.
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
'Sure it is. In fact, contracts probably compose the single largest body of law anywhere.'
What a load of crap, here's my license.
By replying to my post who agree that I can come around your house with a shot gun and shoot you?
Since: 1: You don't have the ability to negoitiate the 'contract' I wouldn't call it a contract. 2: You don't sign the contract I wouldn't call it a contract. 3: You don't get to see the 'contract' before purchising the product I wouldn't call it a contract. 4: I cannot remove you right to life, even if you sign a contract to the contry I wouldn't call it a contract.
Contracts work within the law and don't make up their own laws.
It's been a good few years since I tuched Microsoft apps , but from what I remember in Excell protect and you can share a worksheet from one of the menu options (or via VBA), then when you send out copies of the workbook for clients or co-workers to send back with their ammendments you can see a full history of any changes.
OpenOffice also seems to lack things like good TOC generation and automatic revision history which are also 'killer' features found in Microsoft Office.
I was really supprised when I couldn't find the featuers in either KOffice or OpenOffice (Koffice will generate TOC'x but their crap to the point of being useless)
Slashdot Mirror
If media player can be made to run under wine then you can get a raw output to make a ripped copy from.
Logo's on t-shirts and billboards are not the same. It only takes an instant to move your eyes away from it.....
They must be using models from the ugly tree corp of America in your area then either that or their not your type. Personally being distracted in the the first place is the annoying thing not how long it takes me to look away.
Spam costs you 'nothing' because you are unknowingly funding filtering and blocking of spam.
Spam costs me 'nothing' because I register to a million and one mailing lists that I have to filter through anyway, the extra bit of filtering for spam is negligible, I also have a private email address that I give to very few people so I can always get to my important email without any excess cost. This was also the case when I was running my own private mail server without any filtering (except possibly my ISP blocking a few IP addresses from it's network)
It's not just 'mailing list' anymore, for instance Experian sell more demographic and other data than you could possibly imagine and stores like WallMart and Tesco hold and sell a huge amount of information often about individual people.
That data is readily sold to advertisers (and anyone else who wants it) and it more-or-less works out as a tax being charged by the data providers that ends up costing the customer in a nnumber of ways mostly relating to freedom of choice.
Considering 1/3rd of the Simpsons is typically commercials I'd think its safe to say thats quite a bit more than in the past.
and that 1/3 costs you, when you buy a product from the advertiser you pay for the add, and when you watch TV it takes up your time and time is also money. Spam costs me a negligible amount of money and hardly any time at all.
Maybe all companies should be charged (taxed) for data and advertising stopping spam from being so profitable and stopping companies from readily exchanging data about people.
I pay advertising costs whenever I buy a product, and the use of Krapple Mac's and other obvious product placements often spoils the whole file for which I've payed a good £6 ($8.5) to see. Flashing and changing bill boards also waste my time, and time is money, so really there's little cost difference between spam and other ads.
giving spam an air of legitimacy
And TV, Billboard, Radio , Film and Hommy Tilfiger Logos on cloths don't have exactly the same effect?
I'm not saying I support spam, just that spam is another form of advertising. If other forms of advertising come unsolicited from companies.
Why is spam any worse than someone wearing a krappa t-shirt, drinking a can of Koke and eating a MukDonalds, why is spam any worse than traditional junk mail?
You can't easly edit, ammend and reformat a 3-ring binder..
a 3-ring binder also has a tree cost.
'He's not looking to build his own space elevators or nanotubes, he just wants to know whats up in the news.' and so is everybody else.
If every 'a bug has been found in the kernel' story amounted to the diff to fix the bug then it would be fairly useless to the majority of people who care about bugs in the kernel. If some is interested about the exact cause of the bug then a simple story is enough for them to start looking on the kernel mailing list to identify the patch.
So long as the story doesn't amount to gross missinformation then I don't see a need for everyday media to be aimed at anyone with the mental age above 10 years old.
Joe sixpack doesn't need to know what 'normalized' is, all he has to know is that something has been done to the weight and normalized suggests that it's kinda normal.
You'd be supprized at the number of people who use weight to mean mass (and probably never use the word mass) and on earth it's just about normalized (weight = mass * G and G ~= 0.96?) so it doesn't matter too much anyway.
WTF is Strength normalized to weight?
Specific strength is the term they are looking for, second it is normalized to mass, not weight.
Maybe they were trying to target a nonscientific audience. To Joe sixpack Specific strength means nothing, and weight is the same thing as mass(assuming Joe has a vaguely idea about what the word mass means)
There are two key stages of HIV infection, the first is where the HIV virus hijacks a white blood cell to gain entry into other cells, the second is the retro virus bit where it merges with the DNA. I think that the crock cure may work very well on the first stage.
This is not 'real' inovation, they've been using the technique in Arfrica for years as a cheep way of producing glasses.
I coudln't find any info on google but I'm fairly sure they were invented by the wind up radio guy.
or if your really after pior art, it looks like the Greeks may have beaten them to it by 3000 years.
Here's an encarta link too
There is nothing in the article to suggest that they have isolated the specific component that kills HIV, let alone determined that it is safe for human injection.
To the contrary there's everything to suggest that there a specific component/s that kill HIV.
Do you know how they make anti-venom?
They poison a horse with the snakes venom, the horse makes antibodies to the venom, after a while you drain the blood from a horse, separate out the red blood cells (leaving a serum). The serum can then be given to humans when they are bitten by a snake and the horse antibodies kill off the venom.
I should imagine that exactly the same thing is going to be done with the crocks, except they are worried that the crock antibodies may kill of humans too. (Crocks have been around since the dinosaurs so you'd expect them to have a good immune system, I wonder what the immune system of scorpions is like?)
I don't know, I think you need a semi-colon.
Would you like to live in a world where you have to second guess all companies; because their trying to screw you out of as much money as possible.
Now you don't have to second guess the compaines because you know they are going to screw you out of as much money as possible.
well, maybe not?
You should be able to pickup a spectrum or BBC or C64 quite cheaply, my younger brothers and sisters got a huge amount just typing in code listings and running them.
Fuckem', we should all buy a pair of trainers(not nike) and hold a minilympics (tm) in the park.
It just happens that gambling is typically a bad risk. ... If you try and make stupidity illegal, you'll never want for laws.
Would you like to live in a world where you have to second guess all companies because their trying to screw you out of as much money as possible, or one where companies where honest and responsible.
I would expect that it is the view of the Austrailian government that gambling is never as honest of as responsible as it should be, and any Advertising is bad and dishonest so they ban it.
I think it would be wonderfull world if politicians never lied and companies were responsible and truthfull, but it's never going to happen. Sometimes legislation preventing an activity from being promoted (whilst not actually preventing the activity itself) is a step in the right direction.
That sounds like a interesting firefox adding project. It should be easy.
A while ago I heard about an interesting project to screw all those loyalty/tracking cards you get for shopping.
The idea is to swap cards with someone else every so often so that their data gets completely screwed up.
Could something similar be done with cookies to rm -rf the data recorded by the personal data collectors, bugmenot is about as closest thing I've found to cookie swapping.
A crash, although it may open one up to attack, cannot be exploited without alerting the user to a problem.
Crashes usually happen because of one of two things, an attempt to read a block of memory out of range, or an attempt to execute code in a block of memory out of range.
They are commonly caused by either, uninitilised pointers or buffer over or underruns modifying the data in the pointers.
in the first case it's very hard to exploit the crash, but it's certainly possible that it could be exploited, the expolit would relly on the uninitlised pointer pointing to an old block of ram that hasn't been cleared.
in the second case it's still difficult but a little easier since you can directly manipulate the memory that the appication has access to.
Both types of exploit would cause the the firefox process to seemlessly execute code inserted by a probably malicious party. A crash will not occure because the old random pointers and data now point to the inserted code.
Have you actually read the GPL?
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
1. That was the point.
So I can't run anthing on linux that is not GPL because Linux is GPL?
2. but the people who write EULAs claim otherwise.
They can claim all they want, it doesn't make it legally binding.
3. Nothing beyond this point parses as anything resembling an english sentence.
That's my point, you don;t understand.
'Sure it is. In fact, contracts probably compose the single largest body of law anywhere.'
What a load of crap, here's my license.
By replying to my post who agree that I can come around your house with a shot gun and shoot you?
Since:
1: You don't have the ability to negoitiate the 'contract' I wouldn't call it a contract.
2: You don't sign the contract I wouldn't call it a contract.
3: You don't get to see the 'contract' before purchising the product I wouldn't call it a contract.
4: I cannot remove you right to life, even if you sign a contract to the contry I wouldn't call it a contract.
Contracts work within the law and don't make up their own laws.
It's been a good few years since I tuched Microsoft apps , but from what I remember in Excell protect and you can share a worksheet from one of the menu options (or via VBA), then when you send out copies of the workbook for clients or co-workers to send back with their ammendments you can see a full history of any changes.
OpenOffice also seems to lack things like good TOC generation and automatic revision history which are also 'killer' features found in Microsoft Office.
I was really supprised when I couldn't find the featuers in either KOffice or OpenOffice (Koffice will generate TOC'x but their crap to the point of being useless)