IF you're a paraiste that feeds off the blood of animals then aving your head pulled off is not an evolutionary benifit. However being able to grip so tightly to your host that a tremndous force is required to disloge you, is. The former can be a result of the later.
(Not saying anything to the valdity of the claim that a ticks head comes off one way or another, only addressing the issue that an evolutionary benifit can still cause undesirable effects.)
Both live off another, but a parasite doesn't completely destory its host.
As far as the metaphore goes about us destroying the earth. *shrug* I don't really buy it either. You can't be a parasite to a habitat, you can only change it.
I do agree however with the seniments that we tend to not consider the world surounding us (quite frankly everything does).
Frankly, anyone's statment is more credible than a statment made by Jerry Falwell.
Without a doubt, I'm sure some of the more religous people are thinking "C.S. Lewis" as that particular atheist.
Anyways while using Ad Homminum is a poor logical method to discredit any statment it *is* prehaps an ok method for filtering what statments you're willing to listen to.
There are some things to which $25k would be better spent.
This does not mean that spending $25k on providing internet access is a "misappropriation" of funds.
I for one, am going to contribute. And I'm not going to feel guilty that my money isn't going to a more "essential need".
True, you're right to point out that there are more important things than "the internet." 25K could be spent better, but that kind of thinking can lead to lethargy and a slippery slope in our thinking. We end up in a kind of despair and rather than giving more, we end up giving less because we think "there's always something better we could spend our money on."
This is a good thing. It's perhaps not as good as some things, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy cause.
Don't you have to be dead to be canonized?
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 5, Funny
If so, then does does that make this a hit list too?
In that case you're right. It wasn't a snide remark, it was merely a reflection of Slashdot hypocrisy of posting NYT links and ignoring other registration sites.
"The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration."
Grow up.
If you don't want to link to it because it requires registration, fine. But don't make snide comments like that, as if you were reprimanding the site (or worse the story submitters) for having "registration required." Esp. since Slashdot already has "grandfathered in" the New York Times.
Further, I'm not so sure Office is going to be able to steal thunder this time. The.doc format has been a pretty standard format in comerical, public, and private usage. However many of its users are still on Word 2000, or even 97. There isn't much incentivie to keep upgrading, esp. with a format that isn't reverse compatiable.
For some websites. Generaly the ones who use Anti-leech.
Frankly I have *no* problem with Anti-Leech. I think they put it quite eloquently in their faq:
You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups
If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return.
If a website wants to use Anti-Leech, *let it* There's no reason it shouldn't. True, I think that people who say "We should force you to view our ads if you use are service" are missing a key element that people who don't want to view they ads probably aren't going to click on them.. but hey it's their content and their choice to block, charge or whatever with it*
*So long as they don't try to prevent others from providing the same content *cough* siaa *cough*
Isn't this being done on purpose to prevent it?
on
Human-Mouse Hybrids?
·
· Score: 2
I don't register with the NYT so I can't see if this is the Newman mouse.. though I belive this was being done so that it could be Pateneted and either:
A. Make the goverment/people so sick that they would change the patent laws (and presumably other laws) to prevent such things.
B. Gain a patent and use it to prevent others from ever doing such a thing.
"As far as I can see, speech-to-text would be a lot bigger (space-wise), as well as *way* more processor intensive. And slower and less accurate."
How well do you actualy see? The software would require the speach to be converted into some form of phonetics before it could determine mouth position. And if it can be converted to phoenetics it's just as easy to convert to text.
The only possible reason I can see for this is if the software isn't really that accurate and so ti can get away with fudging the phonetics just a bit and/or the software was designed not so much for the pure deaf, but for those with some audio preception and the visuals of the mouth help them to better understand the audio.
I don't know much about the UltraDNS stuff.. as for the other thing:
7 or the 13 servers went down for a bit. And because of caching and redundancy this wasn't really a notticable thing. It might be, however if a million windows boxes were comenced such an attack over days.
When it comes right down to it, I think the root operators are doing a pretty good job all things considered. (they're allready approaching ways in which to protect themselves)
However, if this had been an attack on verisign's.com zone file then I suspect a rather large number of users would have had experienced some rather large problems.
Their was a lot of force behind the blow, but the punch wasn't aimed well.
What's bothersome is that if this was used by somone who knew what they were doing. (That's assuming it was an attack and not a warning, or a test of some sort)
Slashdot Mirror
IF you're a paraiste that feeds off the blood of animals then aving your head pulled off is not an evolutionary benifit. However being able to grip so tightly to your host that a tremndous force is required to disloge you, is.
The former can be a result of the later.
(Not saying anything to the valdity of the claim that a ticks head comes off one way or another, only addressing the issue that an evolutionary benifit can still cause undesirable effects.)
The word is predator.
Both live off another, but a parasite doesn't completely destory its host.
As far as the metaphore goes about us destroying the earth. *shrug* I don't really buy it either. You can't be a parasite to a habitat, you can only change it.
I do agree however with the seniments that we tend to not consider the world surounding us (quite frankly everything does).
"potential" profit margins.
That's asuming all CDs are sold.
It also doesn't factor in shipping costs, advertisments, all the cheesy little misc. fees.
I would say 10,000 is a very conservative value too, as far as marketing to radios goes.
Big productions really do cost 1 million to make, mostly because it's all spent in advertisments.
*shrug*
None the less we still get price gouged. (and as has been said Microsoft has got the RIAA by the balls when it comes to price fixing.)
Frankly, anyone's statment is more credible than a statment made by Jerry Falwell.
Without a doubt, I'm sure some of the more religous people are thinking "C.S. Lewis" as that particular atheist.
Anyways while using Ad Homminum is a poor logical method to discredit any statment it *is* prehaps an ok method for filtering what statments you're willing to listen to.
This sounds like High School again.
"Mark said that Shirly swears (and Shirly never ever lies) she overheard Jenny say she got it on with Mr. Macgee the English teacher!"
Actually, you might have been typing that letter for letter (I haven't read the print edition myself. )
Still there should have been a sic.
It's theologian.
...which probably means your source came from here:
n t. htm
:)
That's a misquote from Neil Postman's "The Judgment of Thamus"
http://www.luc.edu/faculty/jreymon/demosite/pri
I'm just trying to be ironical.
It's all in good fun.
There are some things to which $25k would be better spent.
This does not mean that spending $25k on providing internet access is a "misappropriation" of funds.
I for one, am going to contribute. And I'm not going to feel guilty that my money isn't going to a more "essential need".
True, you're right to point out that there are more important things than "the internet." 25K could be spent better, but that kind of thinking can lead to lethargy and a slippery slope in our thinking. We end up in a kind of despair and rather than giving more, we end up giving less because we think "there's always something better we could spend our money on."
This is a good thing. It's perhaps not as good as some things, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy cause.
If so, then does does that make this a hit list too?
In that case you're right. It wasn't a snide remark, it was merely a reflection of Slashdot hypocrisy of posting NYT links and ignoring other registration sites.
That's a really asinine way of doing things.
If thought it was a good story and were simply following the rules (so there wasn't any other way you could let us know) then my bad.
"The LA Times has a story about animating Gollum which we can't link to because it requires registration."
Grow up.
If you don't want to link to it because it requires registration, fine. But don't make snide comments like that, as if you were reprimanding the site (or worse the story submitters) for having "registration required." Esp. since Slashdot already has "grandfathered in" the New York Times.
Good thing
Isn't the parent more of a "funny"?
The amusing thing is, around here, it's cheaper for us to get broadband & cable than just cable alone. $2.50 is still $2.50
Cox... so strange...
Mind you falling is just a form of flying where the ground gets in your way.
"Office 11 will also be backwards compatible but will supposedly have the ability to save in XML also."
.Doc
Point in case is it's either XML or
XML is the suggested "adobe killer" and is not reverse compatiable.
Further, I'm not so sure Office is going to be able to steal thunder this time. The .doc format has been a pretty standard format in comerical, public, and private usage. However many of its users are still on Word 2000, or even 97. There isn't much incentivie to keep upgrading, esp. with a format that isn't reverse compatiable.
*shrug* course all this has been argued before.
"It is only humorous if you are a thick-glassed, pear-shaped, no-life loser nerd. I bet you smell like onion rings too."
No.
I smell like cheese.
Please try to get it right next time.
*grin*
I find it best not to feed the trolls. They get the shits when they're taken off their regular diet of billy goat.
No need to even defend yourself against that orginal AC post. Your other two were hummorous enough to make it meaningless.
For some websites. Generaly the ones who use Anti-leech.
Frankly I have *no* problem with Anti-Leech. I think they put it quite eloquently in their faq:
You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups
If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return.
If a website wants to use Anti-Leech, *let it* There's no reason it shouldn't.
True, I think that people who say "We should force you to view our ads if you use are service" are missing a key element that people who don't want to view they ads probably aren't going to click on them.. but hey it's their content and their choice to block, charge or whatever with it*
*So long as they don't try to prevent others from providing the same content *cough* siaa *cough*
I don't register with the NYT so I can't see if this is the Newman mouse.. though I belive this was being done so that it could be Pateneted and either:
A. Make the goverment/people so sick that they would change the patent laws (and presumably other laws) to prevent such things.
B. Gain a patent and use it to prevent others from ever doing such a thing.
Here's a link:
http://www2.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/humouse.html
"As far as I can see, speech-to-text would be a lot bigger (space-wise), as well as *way* more processor intensive. And slower and less accurate."
How well do you actualy see? The software would require the speach to be converted into some form of phonetics before it could determine mouth position. And if it can be converted to phoenetics it's just as easy to convert to text.
The only possible reason I can see for this is if the software isn't really that accurate and so ti can get away with fudging the phonetics just a bit and/or the software was designed not so much for the pure deaf, but for those with some audio preception and the visuals of the mouth help them to better understand the audio.
Actually speech to text is much more reliable.
Text to speech:
1. person speaks
2. software interprets phonetics converts it into words
3. deaf person reads the words
versus
1. person speaks
2. software interprets phonetics into picture based lip movements
3. deaf person interprets picture based lip movements
Point of fact this is unbelievably dumb and is right up there with converting Russian to German for an English speaker to read.
I don't know much about the UltraDNS stuff.. as for the other thing:
.com zone file then I suspect a rather large number of users would have had experienced some rather large problems.
7 or the 13 servers went down for a bit. And because of caching and redundancy this wasn't really a notticable thing.
It might be, however if a million windows boxes were comenced such an attack over days.
When it comes right down to it, I think the root operators are doing a pretty good job all things considered. (they're allready approaching ways in which to protect themselves)
However, if this had been an attack on verisign's
Their was a lot of force behind the blow, but the punch wasn't aimed well.
What's bothersome is that if this was used by somone who knew what they were doing. (That's assuming it was an attack and not a warning, or a test of some sort)