Or to explain why GWB is a reasonable choice for President?
Don't let the facts get in the way....
on
FOSDEM Interviews
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But these interviews show that Freedesktop is barely making a difference. The KDE mentions a little bit of cooperation
Er....
FOSDEM - In your point of view, how do you see the relationship between the KDE and GNOME community, but also FreeDesktop.Org?
Matthias Ettrich - If you mean "community" as in "developer community", there is a professional level of cooperation through freedesktop.org. While many KDE developers had some initial skepticism towards freedesktop.org, it has now gained broad acceptance.
and
FOSDEM - Are there any plans for KDE 4 to colaborate more closely with Gnome to establish a common framework for things like IO, database access, multimedia, configuration, usual desktop services like file open dialog, print dialog, systray icon, etc
Matthias Ettrich - Most of the things you mentioned are covered through continuous efforts done at freedesktop.org. In the area of multimedia there's even more cooperation, so I guess the answer is yes.
Yes, but you have to ask how this fits into their quest to organize the world's information?
Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps it's just a good way for them to capitalise on their brand name. Selling domain names is an automated, machine driven process, something they should be good at.
Also they have a wider audience to sell domains to. The average Joe Blogger or Jemima Gmail might otherwise not consider getting a name but if it's offered cheaply the vanity value of it may be worthwhile.
Two shows are doing the same thing but one of them is a satire and one isn't?
Because one is a cartoon and one has real people? (hint, the people on those shows are "actors")
Or simply because you, for some reason, find satire acceptible in one form and not in another?
I'm fairly sure that most people watching a sitcom are aware that it is not "realistic" but simply touching lightly upon "reality" and exaggerating for effect.
What else went over the border to Syria and Iran, we'll probably never know. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
It's proof that invading Iraq in order to prevent the spread of WMD was a dumbass idea! There either weren't any or the war caused exactly what it was supposed to prevent to happen.
Now it's a... blood for votes war? The war divided the fucking USA. How exactly did that win him votes? He won by a larger majority than 2000, but you act as if the war sealed the deal. I mean, the war was the single most hated thing about Bush by the left.
History shows us that war time incumbents seem to be very difficult to beat. For some reason, possibly illfocused patriotism, you really have to be having your arse handed to you on a plate for war to negatively impact your election chances.
Personally I don't think "blood for war" is a viable explanation for America starting the war. I simply think that GWB and co felt clueless and impotent after September 11th and a bit of old fashioned sword rattling was all they could come up with.
Sad to tell you this, but if Iraq gets a taste of democracy and it catches on in the middle east, Bush is going to be the Reagan of the 21st century.
Indeed. The funniest aspect about the whole thing is that despite being driven by ill-advised dumbassery and having the "freedom for Iraqi's" reason retrofitted as a prime motivator there is the possibility that it might just turn out that way. A lot of people who think GWB is an asshat and the war on terror horribly misguided still hope that Iraq stabilises and the people there get a chance. Personally though I think that realistically it's fairly unlikely.
The word "unsafe" was used so we have to assume that's what they meant.
Er, no it wasn't. The initial text:
The scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it shows there's no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide.
does sound like it is suggesting any level of carbon dioxide will be "unsafe" however the later direct quote of a scientist:
"I think these results suggest that our need to do something about climate change is perhaps even more urgent," the climateprediction.net chief scientist David Stainforth told BBC News.
"However, with our current state of knowledge, we can't yet define a safe level in the atmosphere.
is a bit clearer, suggesting that in fact we just don't have a good grasp on what a safe level of carbon dioxide may be.
Re:And when there is no significant immediate thre
on
New Climate Change Warning
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The events of 9/11 certainly happened. Does that indicate that there was a significant, immediate ongoing threat?
Does it indicate that Iraq posed a significant, credible threat?
A threat so real that one thousand four hundred and eighteen (to date) American lives should be spent stopping (somehow) that threat?
And when there is no significant immediate threat
on
New Climate Change Warning
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I can't speak to your situation specifically but updating the firmware on my wireless router helped me. The PC I used bittorrent on is actually connected by cat5 but it made the router behave flakily (I think it had trouble keeping up with the NAT/firewall states). An updated firmware has made it sing.
Bittorrent is not designed to help end users directly. It helps distributors by decreasing the resources they require or (if they have fixed resources available) allows them to make better use of those resources by offloading requests to other bittorrent users. The benefit to end users is that they will sometimes be able to access resources that would otherwise be swamped if they were being accessed by a different manner. No doubt some people also simply feel good because by helping seed a torrent are, if only in a small way, helping out a project.
Obviously Bittorrent won't be as efficient as straight http or ftp if the http/ftp server you are talking about can serve you at your maximum rate because there is extra overhead in Bittorrent (negotiating with multiple servers, recieving requests yourself, talking to the tracker etc).
Someone suggests bittorrent as some "magic" solution for web mirroring every time it's mentioned but it just doesn't sound feasible to me.
Bittorrent is good at distributing large files. For small files (web pages etc) the resources used in running a tracker that coordinates people getting files from each other isn't going to be significantly less than simply serving up the content in the first place. Peers have to be talking to each other a fair bit for the effort of the tracker introducing them and coordinating them to be worthwhile. For small pieces of content that's unlikely to be the case.
a)You don't need to set up a honeypot. Any public tracker will just tell you the IP addresses of anyone connected to it. It would be effortless to gather that data over a period of time and identify some heavy users (particularly seeders) to pursue seriously.
b)For all intents and purposes Bittorrent operates over well defined ports anyway.
I simply can't see how Exeem can make it easier to automate the process of suing people. Everything with bittorrent happens in plain sight at a well known address.
With bittorrent everyone's IPs are in plain sight on a plainly visible central tracker. No matter what Exeem does I can't see how it could make it "much easier" to track people down.
That said I don't think the nominal point of Exseem is to "reduce the ability of copyright owners to sue pirates". Individual pirates will probably be as attackable as ever (you simply can't offer something to the public without them knowing it came from you in an efficient manner otherwise). It just aims to remove the risk of a central point of failure, the tracker, being attacked (legally or otherwise).
It's possible that Exeem could make users open to more prosecution though. Typically Bittorrent users can be seen uploading/downloading one piece of content at a time. If Exeem decentralises in such a way that their computers are also taking part in indexing and tracking downloads then arguably they are involving themselves with more copyright violation than with Bittorrent.
Australia requires all passengers on international flights to fill in an arrival card on the plane before it lands. If you refuse to fill in the arrival card you won't even be allowed into the airport
That sounds overstated. You are given the card on the plane but I've never seen any compulsion to have it filled before passing through customs. (Of course you are sitting on a plane with not much else to do so everyone fills it in).
I'm not sure what you think you are replying to. Your initial post seemed to be suggesting that Creationists had no part in placing the sticker.
I was merely pointing out that an informed, reasonable person would conclude that the sticker was placed on the books to satisfy creationists. That is what the Judges findings state.
Your peculiarly capitalised response seems to address my thoughts on evolution and it's teaching which is funny because I didn't mention them and you evidently don't know what they are. I did mention them here though, you might be pleasantly surprised.
of what the court said. While the board may have adopted a secular message there is no doubt the motivating force behind the whole thing was Creationists.
Just as citizens around the country have been aware of the historical debate
between evolution and religion, an informed, reasonable observer in this case would
be keenly aware of the sequence of events that preceded the adoption of the Sticker.
See Capitol Square. 515 U S at 780 (O'Connor, J , concurring) (noting that the
reasonable observer is "presumed to possess a certain level of information that all
citizens might not share") . Based on justice O'Connor's description of what the
reasonable observer would be deemed to know, the Court believes these events are
key to ascertaining the primary effect of the Sticker Specifically, the informed,
reasonable observer would know that a significant number of Cobb Country citizens
had voiced opposition to the teaching of evolution for religious reasons The
informed, reasonable observer would also know that despite this opposition, the
Cobb County School District was in the process of revising its policy and regulation
regarding theories of origin to reflect that evolution would be taught in Cobb
County schools Further, the informed, reasonable observer would be aware that
citizens and parents largely motivated by religion put pressure on the School Board
to implement certain measures that would nevertheless dilute the teaching of
evolution, including placing a disclaimer in the front of certain textbooks that
distinguished evolution as a theory, not a fait Finally, the informed, reasonable
observer would be aware that the language of the Sucker essentially mirrors the
viewpoint of these religiously-motivated citizens .
While the School Board may have considered the request of its constituents
and adopted the Sticker for sincere, secular purposes, an informed, reasonable
observer would understand the School Board to be endorsing the viewpoint of
Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a problematic theory
lacking an adequate foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the 21st century.
We have eBay now.
Or to explain why GWB is a reasonable choice for President?
He might mistake it for Iran.
A "Fucktards R Us" meeting?
someone having a brick put through their window.
Two shows are doing the same thing but one of them is a satire and one isn't?
Because one is a cartoon and one has real people? (hint, the people on those shows are "actors")
Or simply because you, for some reason, find satire acceptible in one form and not in another?
I'm fairly sure that most people watching a sitcom are aware that it is not "realistic" but simply touching lightly upon "reality" and exaggerating for effect.
It's funny because it's true.
Personally I don't think "blood for war" is a viable explanation for America starting the war. I simply think that GWB and co felt clueless and impotent after September 11th and a bit of old fashioned sword rattling was all they could come up with. Indeed. The funniest aspect about the whole thing is that despite being driven by ill-advised dumbassery and having the "freedom for Iraqi's" reason retrofitted as a prime motivator there is the possibility that it might just turn out that way. A lot of people who think GWB is an asshat and the war on terror horribly misguided still hope that Iraq stabilises and the people there get a chance. Personally though I think that realistically it's fairly unlikely.
The events of 9/11 certainly happened. Does that indicate that there was a significant, immediate ongoing threat?
Does it indicate that Iraq posed a significant, credible threat?
A threat so real that one thousand four hundred and eighteen (to date) American lives should be spent stopping (somehow) that threat?
Make one up!
I can't speak to your situation specifically but updating the firmware on my wireless router helped me. The PC I used bittorrent on is actually connected by cat5 but it made the router behave flakily (I think it had trouble keeping up with the NAT/firewall states). An updated firmware has made it sing.
Bittorrent is not designed to help end users directly. It helps distributors by decreasing the resources they require or (if they have fixed resources available) allows them to make better use of those resources by offloading requests to other bittorrent users. The benefit to end users is that they will sometimes be able to access resources that would otherwise be swamped if they were being accessed by a different manner. No doubt some people also simply feel good because by helping seed a torrent are, if only in a small way, helping out a project.
Obviously Bittorrent won't be as efficient as straight http or ftp if the http/ftp server you are talking about can serve you at your maximum rate because there is extra overhead in Bittorrent (negotiating with multiple servers, recieving requests yourself, talking to the tracker etc).
Someone suggests bittorrent as some "magic" solution for web mirroring every time it's mentioned but it just doesn't sound feasible to me.
Bittorrent is good at distributing large files. For small files (web pages etc) the resources used in running a tracker that coordinates people getting files from each other isn't going to be significantly less than simply serving up the content in the first place. Peers have to be talking to each other a fair bit for the effort of the tracker introducing them and coordinating them to be worthwhile. For small pieces of content that's unlikely to be the case.
Off-topic will probably have to do.
a)You don't need to set up a honeypot. Any public tracker will just tell you the IP addresses of anyone connected to it. It would be effortless to gather that data over a period of time and identify some heavy users (particularly seeders) to pursue seriously.
b)For all intents and purposes Bittorrent operates over well defined ports anyway.
I simply can't see how Exeem can make it easier to automate the process of suing people. Everything with bittorrent happens in plain sight at a well known address.
With bittorrent everyone's IPs are in plain sight on a plainly visible central tracker. No matter what Exeem does I can't see how it could make it "much easier" to track people down.
That said I don't think the nominal point of Exseem is to "reduce the ability of copyright owners to sue pirates". Individual pirates will probably be as attackable as ever (you simply can't offer something to the public without them knowing it came from you in an efficient manner otherwise). It just aims to remove the risk of a central point of failure, the tracker, being attacked (legally or otherwise).
It's possible that Exeem could make users open to more prosecution though. Typically Bittorrent users can be seen uploading/downloading one piece of content at a time. If Exeem decentralises in such a way that their computers are also taking part in indexing and tracking downloads then arguably they are involving themselves with more copyright violation than with Bittorrent.
The phrase I was thinking of was "What a bunch of cunts!".
I'm not sure what you think you are replying to. Your initial post seemed to be suggesting that Creationists had no part in placing the sticker.
I was merely pointing out that an informed, reasonable person would conclude that the sticker was placed on the books to satisfy creationists. That is what the Judges findings state.
Your peculiarly capitalised response seems to address my thoughts on evolution and it's teaching which is funny because I didn't mention them and you evidently don't know what they are. I did mention them here though, you might be pleasantly surprised.