I don't believe all radio shacks do it, but in a number I've been to (Fairfax VA area) the employees (or somthing) is fitted with a microphone and this transmits the conversations into the back stock room.
It always freaked me out to be looking for LEDs and hear a disembodied voices saying: "can I help you?" "yes do you sell power adapters?" "we sell all sorts of power sir."
If you're using an alternative root server and somone brings down the "offical" root servers you shouldn't have to worry about it.
I really don't know what your problem is, as you're defending an Establishment that wasn't attacked. If a root server is incapable of protecting itself, there's no reason why it should be a root server. I really don't care wheter or not 95% of the people didn't nottice it as the 5% of the net users who did is really quite a large amount.
This statment has nothing to do with DNS, it has to do with how trustwority a rootserver should be.
And in all honesty, I would say that if the "offical" root servers can't protect themselves, they really have no business being root servers (TLD or otherwise) in the first place.
"I guess this article states the obvious. Of course people don't need faster computers. The only reason they'd need fast computers is if they are playing high-end computer games, or using Windows (which for some reason or another always keeps on making it's software more dependent on speedier computers, even though it is completely unnecessary.)"
"Finite number of bases. Finite number of genes. Finite number of "chambers". Finite chance of shooting ourselves."
While I would say that a chain of DNA is, for all practical purposes, infinite that wasn't the message I inteded to give. Rather it was a comment that we don't know all the factors, we don't even know if it's possible for there to be a DNA bullet (to extended the metaphore). Sure there is a possiblity we might create our doom, but then the same could be said for any scientific endevor (I would say expirments with the atom are much more frightening than with DNA anyways)
Regardless this is the kind of thing where I believe we can't make judgements based on what ifs, we need to base it on evidence. So the question is, is there evidence that genetic manipulation has/will create cataclismic consequnecs? There are some bad things, but there are some good things as well. The real danger as with anything is application.
Oh, really? Where in the hell are they growing all these biotech crops, then?
" So if we don't really understand what all this DNA stuff does, why do we allow biotech firms to tinker with it and then release their little Frankensteins into the wild. Seems like Russian Roulette to me."
It's Russian Roulette with a gun that has infinte chambers.
We don't allow biotech firms to relase their little Frankensteins into the wild. We let them research and learn.
We've been playing with DNA ever since we've been raising our own plants and animals. We're doing the same sort of thing now, just on a much more microscopic scale.
The only danger (from an ethical stand point at least) is when we make *learning* about what we're made from above what we are. Things like creating a human life for the sole purpose of understanding it. (Ie you don't raise a child as an experiement.) Anytime one places X Y or Z above humanity then we all have a problem.
Course, there's so much argument about the whole thing because it's kind of subjective as to wheter one is placing somthing over humanity.
This reminds me of the scrapbook UCB episode...
on
Backup Your Life on a DVD
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's paramount to silly.
"The motivation? Microsoft argues that our memories often deceive us: experiences get exaggerated, we muddle the timing of events and simply forget stuff. Much better, says the firm, to junk such unreliable interpretations and instead build a faithful memory on that most reliable of entities, the PC."
Yes, let's junk our minds and rely on computers instead! After all, we all know that computers are exactly like human brains only better! Haha, I will now power up and defeat you with my powerfull... hands!..... I have no idea why I just said that. Likewise, I have no idea why this is inovative or impressive. People have been doing this for years.. with photos, diarys, letters and such. This, much as the artical says, is just a large database.
And frankly, I completely disagree with their premiss that having such accurate data on our past will give us a more true picture of what we were. We can only see the world through our own eyes, even if we have a perfect time line of what we *did* it still isn't likey to change how we'll think about our actions. We're still tainted by our own predjuices and momentary feelings and everything else, that relationship one had a year ago is still going to seem like a silly thing, and we're still going to say "oh, I wasn't really in love with her" even if we can see exactly what we did...
Besides, for the important things (well, what I consider important anyways, I'm sure as hell not going to suggest any of you need believe what I do) there's somthing to be said for just a memory. Sometimes a remembered smile between friends during a metor shower is more special than a video tape of the whole night.
I really doubt it will put swfs out of business. 90% of browsers used allready are flash compliant, there's 10% for SVG
(source data on SVG users) http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/comparison _flash_s vg.html
Frankly I think swf simply has better tools to create them (In this case Flash). *shrug* I honestly haven't used much with SVG any links to a decent app so I can try it out/purchase one?
If you really want to piss these people off
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Steal their databases.
I can only imagine the kind of horror they might feel at getting hacked and finding somone had DL'd their precious list of names.
"Remember: Mohammed Atta and his crew of butchers, who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11/01, plotted the entire scheme in Germany."
Where the hell are you getting this? One of Mohammed Atta's possible places of residnece was Hamburg, Germany. But so was florida. In fact, Florida was one for Waleed Alshehri, Wail Alshehri and Abdulaziz Alomari. Who *all* happened to be on AA #11 Boeing 767.
"The licenses that debtors (Kmart) have of Microsoft's products are licenses of copyrighted materials and, therefore, may not be assumed or assigned with Microsoft's consent," said Microsoft.
That statment is confusing as hell to me. It's got to be "without" doesn't it?
He allready did look once. It's not as if he's asking you to do the work for him.
When somone asks "does anybody know if" it doesn't always mean they're too lazy to do the research themselves, and in this case I'd say it's a sign of intelligence. It's similar to asking "has anyone found the needle in the haystack." before going and looking for it yourself.
As the header says, it does seem a bit overly optimistic. Esp: "When things talk to things, human beings are set free to do work they find more appealing." It just seems to scream utopia socalism, but more to the point in our history with all the great time saving inventions and methods, many "ordinary people" still spend as much time doing "chores" as they did 50, or even a 100 years ago.
Of course, if one is talking about the work place then there's an entierly differnt issue. That of unemployment. (I'm not saying wheter it's good or bad to introduce technology that can do another's job. I'm only saying it *is* an issue, esp. if you're somone who's job is at risk.)
Actualy it doesn't matter. All moderation is based upon a subjective reasoning by a small sampling of the majority of the/. population who care to mod. (with the exception of a few demi-beings who have unlimited mod points and thus slightly skewer the results.)
It's all subjective as to the merits of a post. Wheter it be off-topic or not. There is no difinitive way people *should* vote, because any such suggestion is in itself a subjective view. (The possible exeception to this is if those who set up the system in the first place weren't looking for the multitude of personal views of the masses, but rather a specific kind of subjectivity. If that's the case, then it's still not the burdern of the moderators to change their view, it's the fault of the moderation system for allowing them to have a vote in the first place.)
Either the press need to learn to actualy quote people acurate, or Microsoft needs to stop talking out of both ends (probably both.)
A Microsoft spokeswoman said that Ballmer's remarks were not specifically related to the Xbox, and that the company was committed to selling the console in Australia. http://www.gamemarketwatch.com/news/item.asp?nid=2 582
versus
Microsoft would be forced to reconsider selling the Xbox video game system in Australia, or seek changes to the law, following the acquittal in July of a Sydney man alleged to have sold chips that modify a Sony PlayStation 2 to play imported games, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said yesterday. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/18/10345613 04223.html
Statistics are meaningless without a point of reference. Without that refernce I can just as easily say Cannabis use in the United States is greater than in the Netherlands because the United States is bigger.
Simply because two facts happen to be true, does not mean one is the cause of the other.
Differnt cultures/societies within differnt nations(and their respective cities) is a far better explaination for why one has a greater drug use than the legality of drugs themselves.
As far as alchol when somone who's abused alchol since 18 hits 21 they don't suddenly stop... (it usualy takes them till they get out of college.) Likewise, I doubt the common sense of anyone who seriously thinks that if we legalized drugs the majority of people who would have done anyways, won't.
I totaly agree with that. Most kids probably choose to do drugs or not because of their parents and other influences.
As far as downloading music... well yeah, I'm sure very few kids (people) will not do it because it's illegal. But I still kind of think even less are going to do it, because it is illegal. =]
"Hey CowboyNeal! Whatcha doing?" "Downloading the latest britney spears album" "WTF?! Why are you doing that?" "Cause it's illegal man, ya dig?"
I must say... this is one of the stranger off topic threads I've been part of. Normaly they all degrade into some sort of argument about the nazi's. This one actualy started out that way. heh
By that same report: Prevelance between 15-16 year olds
1996 - Netherlands 31.7% 1999 - Denmark 25.4%
http://annualreport.emcdda.eu.int/en/page77-en.h tm l
Regardless, all these posts about drug use (even if I'm inclinded to agree with many of them) really don't have to do with the orginal point of my offtopic post, which was simply that the majority of kids don't do illegal things because they're illegal.
The comment wasn't intended to be pro or anti drugs at all. Just pro kids. (ugggg! I can't believe I said somthing so glurg!)
"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* "
Do you seriously believe that rubish?
Yes, drugs being illegal makes them more attractive to "some" but I wager it makes it that it also makes it that much less attractive for the majority.
Just because somone's a kid, isn't going to make them a rebel against all law.
"It is counter-intuitive that greater responsibility for the implications of one's discourse should fail to invigorate ethics. The contradiction that substantially more of your discourse than previously understood is out of your direct control does not dissolve in this solution. In a very real way it is impossible for your pun to be unintended. The significance of this is not to be overestimated."
Yes. It was a joke. All be it a lame joke. Which is why it required "no pun intended" to point it out. =]
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe all radio shacks do it, but in a number I've been to (Fairfax VA area) the employees (or somthing) is fitted with a microphone and this transmits the conversations into the back stock room.
It always freaked me out to be looking for LEDs and hear a disembodied voices saying:
"can I help you?"
"yes do you sell power adapters?"
"we sell all sorts of power sir."
Dead wrong about what?
If you're using an alternative root server and somone brings down the "offical" root servers you shouldn't have to worry about it.
I really don't know what your problem is, as you're defending an Establishment that wasn't attacked.
If a root server is incapable of protecting itself, there's no reason why it should be a root server.
I really don't care wheter or not 95% of the people didn't nottice it as the 5% of the net users who did is really quite a large amount.
This statment has nothing to do with DNS, it has to do with how trustwority a rootserver should be.
If you're using an alternative root server.
And in all honesty, I would say that if the "offical" root servers can't protect themselves, they really have no business being root servers (TLD or otherwise) in the first place.
"I guess this article states the obvious. Of course people don't need faster computers. The only reason they'd need fast computers is if they are playing high-end computer games, or using Windows (which for some reason or another always keeps on making it's software more dependent on speedier computers, even though it is completely unnecessary.)"
Or, if they're using an X-server.
"Finite number of bases. Finite number of genes. Finite number of "chambers". Finite chance of shooting ourselves."
While I would say that a chain of DNA is, for all practical purposes, infinite that wasn't the message I inteded to give. Rather it was a comment that we don't know all the factors, we don't even know if it's possible for there to be a DNA bullet (to extended the metaphore). Sure there is a possiblity we might create our doom, but then the same could be said for any scientific endevor (I would say expirments with the atom are much more frightening than with DNA anyways)
Regardless this is the kind of thing where I believe we can't make judgements based on what ifs, we need to base it on evidence. So the question is, is there evidence that genetic manipulation has/will create cataclismic consequnecs? There are some bad things, but there are some good things as well. The real danger as with anything is application.
Oh, really? Where in the hell are they growing all these biotech crops, then?
Explain how they are "little frankenstines"?
" So if we don't really understand what all this DNA stuff does, why do we allow biotech firms to tinker with it and then release their little Frankensteins into the wild. Seems like Russian Roulette to me."
It's Russian Roulette with a gun that has infinte chambers.
We don't allow biotech firms to relase their little Frankensteins into the wild. We let them research and learn.
We've been playing with DNA ever since we've been raising our own plants and animals. We're doing the same sort of thing now, just on a much more microscopic scale.
The only danger (from an ethical stand point at least) is when we make *learning* about what we're made from above what we are. Things like creating a human life for the sole purpose of understanding it. (Ie you don't raise a child as an experiement.) Anytime one places X Y or Z above humanity then we all have a problem.
Course, there's so much argument about the whole thing because it's kind of subjective as to wheter one is placing somthing over humanity.
It's paramount to silly.
...
"The motivation? Microsoft argues that our memories often deceive us: experiences get exaggerated, we muddle the timing of events and simply forget stuff. Much better, says the firm, to junk such unreliable interpretations and instead build a faithful memory on that most reliable of entities, the PC."
Yes, let's junk our minds and rely on computers instead! After all, we all know that computers are exactly like human brains only better! Haha, I will now power up and defeat you with my powerfull... hands!..
I have no idea why I just said that.
Likewise, I have no idea why this is inovative or impressive. People have been doing this for years.. with photos, diarys, letters and such. This, much as the artical says, is just a large database.
And frankly, I completely disagree with their premiss that having such accurate data on our past will give us a more true picture of what we were. We can only see the world through our own eyes, even if we have a perfect time line of what we *did* it still isn't likey to change how we'll think about our actions. We're still tainted by our own predjuices and momentary feelings and everything else, that relationship one had a year ago is still going to seem like a silly thing, and we're still going to say "oh, I wasn't really in love with her" even if we can see exactly what we did...
Besides, for the important things (well, what I consider important anyways, I'm sure as hell not going to suggest any of you need believe what I do) there's somthing to be said for just a memory. Sometimes a remembered smile between friends during a metor shower is more special than a video tape of the whole night.
Unless we're talking about YHWH,
in which case it's a noun.
I Am could be considered a proper noun.
This language thing is cool, I wish I understood it.
I really doubt it will put swfs out of business. 90% of browsers used allready are flash compliant, there's 10% for SVG
n _flash_s vg.html
(source data on SVG users)
http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/compariso
Frankly I think swf simply has better tools to create them (In this case Flash). *shrug* I honestly haven't used much with SVG any links to a decent app so I can try it out/purchase one?
Steal their databases.
I can only imagine the kind of horror they might feel at getting hacked and finding somone had DL'd their precious list of names.
You live under a bridge and have a thing for billy goats.
Bravo. Quite a good troll.
"Remember: Mohammed Atta and his crew of butchers, who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11/01, plotted the entire scheme in Germany."
Where the hell are you getting this? One of Mohammed Atta's possible places of residnece was Hamburg, Germany. But so was florida. In fact, Florida was one for Waleed Alshehri, Wail Alshehri and Abdulaziz Alomari. Who *all* happened to be on AA #11 Boeing 767.
From the story:
"The licenses that debtors (Kmart) have of Microsoft's products are licenses of copyrighted materials and, therefore, may not be assumed or assigned with Microsoft's consent," said Microsoft.
That statment is confusing as hell to me. It's got to be "without" doesn't it?
He allready did look once.
It's not as if he's asking you to do the work for him.
When somone asks "does anybody know if" it doesn't always mean they're too lazy to do the research themselves, and in this case I'd say it's a sign of intelligence. It's similar to asking "has anyone found the needle in the haystack." before going and looking for it yourself.
As the header says, it does seem a bit overly optimistic. Esp: "When things talk to things, human beings are set free to do work they find more appealing." It just seems to scream utopia socalism, but more to the point in our history with all the great time saving inventions and methods, many "ordinary people" still spend as much time doing "chores" as they did 50, or even a 100 years ago.
Of course, if one is talking about the work place then there's an entierly differnt issue. That of unemployment. (I'm not saying wheter it's good or bad to introduce technology that can do another's job. I'm only saying it *is* an issue, esp. if you're somone who's job is at risk.)
Anyone got a reliable link for the toilet one?
... well ... acurate news.
I've never really considered the register to be a source of
Actualy it doesn't matter. /. population who care to mod. (with the exception of a few demi-beings who have unlimited mod points and thus slightly skewer the results.)
All moderation is based upon a subjective reasoning by a small sampling of the majority of the
It's all subjective as to the merits of a post. Wheter it be off-topic or not. There is no difinitive way people *should* vote, because any such suggestion is in itself a subjective view. (The possible exeception to this is if those who set up the system in the first place weren't looking for the multitude of personal views of the masses, but rather a specific kind of subjectivity. If that's the case, then it's still not the burdern of the moderators to change their view, it's the fault of the moderation system for allowing them to have a vote in the first place.)
If one could write an Emulator in Flash I'd be extremely impressed.
/.ing though.
Actionscript, while pretty wide reaching, is still limited in certian areas.
Frankly I don't see how you would ever be able to load a rom, unless you were able to convert it into some sort of readable format (XML).
*shrug*
Flash is great for manipulating Flash, it's just getting external elements into Flash that is the problem.
Agreed on the
Either the press need to learn to actualy quote people acurate, or Microsoft needs to stop talking out of both ends (probably both.)
2 582
3 04223.html
A Microsoft spokeswoman said that Ballmer's remarks were not specifically related to the Xbox, and that the company was committed to selling the console in Australia. http://www.gamemarketwatch.com/news/item.asp?nid=
versus
Microsoft would be forced to reconsider selling the Xbox video game system in Australia, or seek changes to the law, following the acquittal in July of a Sydney man alleged to have sold chips that modify a Sony PlayStation 2 to play imported games, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said yesterday. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/18/1034561
Statistics are meaningless without a point of reference.
Without that refernce I can just as easily say Cannabis use in the United States is greater than in the Netherlands because the United States is bigger.
Simply because two facts happen to be true, does not mean one is the cause of the other.
Differnt cultures/societies within differnt nations(and their respective cities) is a far better explaination for why one has a greater drug use than the legality of drugs themselves.
As far as alchol when somone who's abused alchol since 18 hits 21 they don't suddenly stop... (it usualy takes them till they get out of college.)
Likewise, I doubt the common sense of anyone who seriously thinks that if we legalized drugs the majority of people who would have done anyways, won't.
oooo ooo! let's say the toys resemble hay, put them equal distance from the child, and pretend his name is Buridan!
I totaly agree with that. Most kids probably choose to do drugs or not because of their parents and other influences.
As far as downloading music... well yeah, I'm sure very few kids (people) will not do it because it's illegal.
But I still kind of think even less are going to do it, because it is illegal. =]
"Hey CowboyNeal! Whatcha doing?"
"Downloading the latest britney spears album"
"WTF?! Why are you doing that?"
"Cause it's illegal man, ya dig?"
I must say... this is one of the stranger off topic threads I've been part of. Normaly they all degrade into some sort of argument about the nazi's. This one actualy started out that way. heh
By that same report:
h tm l
Prevelance between 15-16 year olds
1996 - Netherlands 31.7%
1999 - Denmark 25.4%
http://annualreport.emcdda.eu.int/en/page77-en.
Regardless, all these posts about drug use (even if I'm inclinded to agree with many of them) really don't have to do with the orginal point of my offtopic post, which was simply that the majority of kids don't do illegal things because they're illegal.
The comment wasn't intended to be pro or anti drugs at all. Just pro kids. (ugggg! I can't believe I said somthing so glurg!)
"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* "
Do you seriously believe that rubish?
Yes, drugs being illegal makes them more attractive to "some" but I wager it makes it that it also makes it that much less attractive for the majority.
Just because somone's a kid, isn't going to make them a rebel against all law.
"It is counter-intuitive that greater responsibility for the implications of one's discourse should fail to invigorate ethics. The contradiction that substantially more of your discourse than previously understood is out of your direct control does not dissolve in this solution. In a very real way it is impossible for your pun to be unintended. The significance of this is not to be overestimated."
Yes. It was a joke.
All be it a lame joke.
Which is why it required "no pun intended" to point it out. =]