You know what? If the choice is between suing a spammer for $1000, or sending them off to a pound-in-the-ass federal prison, I choose the latter for them. Besides, you can't sue someone who breaks into your house, but you can have them sent to jail.
Actually, I think those were the records of your conviction for child molestation. They were accidentily destroyed in a fire. Too bad you can't prove it didn't happen now.
Depends. If you do well, you'll most get endorsements at some point, and possibly go on to be a commentator. Also, spending years being a professional competitor hones skills useful in all sorts of professions, most of them sales related. Ever notice how many insurance agents are former amateur athletes?
Voting is anonymous because only the voting registration people know which unique ID's go to which people, people get new ID's for each election.
How hard would it be for the police to get access to this system? Answer: not at all. Which means if some nutjob seized power and tried to round up all the people who voted for his opponent, it would be trivial to find them all.
Anonymous voting is important for more reasons than just keeping people from buying votes (which can be done even with anonymity).
Please, dont' say "America". Canada is part of America. Mexico too, as is Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, etc. Don't bring us into this. Say United States of America. Thanks.:)
So when Muslim fanatics start chanting "Death to America!" do you think they mean you, or just people in the United States?
Current population of the US = 270m-ish. Current population of Europe = 730m
I guess that depends on what value you use for "Europe". I just did some quick fact checking at the CIA World Factbook, and the member countries of the EU total 375.25 million people. Still more than the US, but not three times as many.
That said, there's no doubt Europe is an economic powerhouse. Luckily for us, y'all have no military to speak of, so once we over here get our act together and come after you, there won't be anything you can do to stop it.:)
3) hacked into debt(identity theft) through the place that controls employment, etc...
Actually, DHHS controls medicare and related programs, not unemployment. Unemployment details are left at the state level down here. Though if the IRS (part of the Treasury deparment) were hacked, you would get completely screwed. (DHHS is also the office of the Surgeon General, so maybe tobacco companies could use this to get a ringing endorsement.)
Also, the State Department controls things like visas, so hacking in there could be a step to getting into the country in the first place.
Hacking the Interior and Agriculture departments could be useful to get yourself some free money. They both have pretty large budgets for either grants or subsidies. I believe the Indian Bureau is part of the Interior, too, so maybe some random tribe could use it to get more money.
Housing and Urban Development gives money to poor people in the inner city, so someone could easily use them to embezzle obscene amounts of money.
The one I'm most scared of is the Department of Energy. They're responsible for keeping nuclear weapons from being smuggled into the country. If someone tried to float a nuke up the Chesapeake, for instance, the boys in the Energy Department have the tools to notice it and alert the Navy and Coast Guard. So getting root there means you can wave your fingers and tell everyone "this is not the tanker you're looking for."
Wasn't there some agreement/policy about not landing/crashing shit into Europa and possibly contaminating it with Earth bacteria (or nuclear fuel/waste as the case may be)?
Yes, I believe the full text of the treaty was something like: All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there.
Or alternatively that nuclear material could be the neccesary kick that life there needs.
A far more likely outcome would be that the lifeforms of Europa would see a nuclear probe crashing into their planet as some sort of terrorist attack, or overt military action. It would only be a matter of time before their scientists developed rockets of their own to answer the threat posed by the strange creatures living within the the dangerous inner planet ring of the Sun. We would all be doomed, doomed I say!
Of course this is preposterous, but no more so than thinking a nuclear reactor would kick start life on a planet covered by ice sheets hundreds of miles thick. The probe would never even reach the liquid water in the first place, let alone interact with any amino acids floating in it.
First, I never said the author was stupid. I said he was unprofessional. I'm not equating spelling with intelligence, I'm equating the ability to spell check (not even the ability to spell, but the ability to hit 'F7' in Word) with being a professional journalist.
Second, I didn't say his facts were wrong, I said they're questionable (if he can't check his spelling, why should we believe he checks his facts?).
Lastly, it's not "bade up" conjecture that the author is sloppy, his writing is there for the world to see. He has countless spelling and grammar errors, of the type that a fourth grader would not make; by definition, his writing is sloppy.
Any time someone wishes to advance their opinion, it is incumbent upon them to present their argument in such a way that others find it compelling. The author wishes to challenge long held beliefs about the creation of Mosaic and Andreesen's part in that. Find, that's all well and good. But if you want to change someone's mind, *all* of the burden of proof is at your feet. I'm under no burden to believe for a second anything some random joe with a Web site wishes to purport. Reference a linked article to the Hollow World theory in a recent Slashdot article, should I automatically assume there's validity to their theory just because they published it on a Web page? Similarly, the author of this article wants me to believe Andreesen did not, in fact, invent Mosaic from whole clothe. I really don't care if he did or didn't, it won't change my life either way. So if he wants me to read his entire text and come away thinking "hmm, maybe he's got something here" he needs to spend a little more time writing up his piece in an intelligent and professional manner, and a little less time attacking people who criticize him on a blog (oops, did I give away your little secret?).
I could quote Churchill or the U.S> Constitution w.r.t. spelling...
Yes, please do. Please point out spelling mistakes made by Sir Winston or the Framers. Of course, I'm sure someone else will gladly point out that American standard and British standard English have different spelling conventions, so what you think are spelling mistakes are probably actually correct. Also remember that American standard English wasn't formalized until after the Revolution, so presumed spelling mistakes in the Constitution are probably also correct.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't bother reading the second linked article because the first was so bad, I assumed the second would just be more of the same. That's what happens when you post something with no credibility, it directly impacts totally unrelated items just because they happen to be referenced together. This is why professional editors are so careful about fact checking and spelling errors: one bad article can tarnish an entire organization (witness the recent problems the NY Times has had because of one bad journalist faking datelines).
The two are intimately related. If someone can't take the time to spell check a document, it means they are sloppy. And if you're sloppy in one area, you're probably sloppy in several. Also, spelling and grammar mistakes indicate a severe lack of professionalism. Again, this leads one to believe that there was no effective fact checking.
Face it: if you want to be taken seriously, you have to conduct yourself as a professional. Any nucklehead can throw up his opinions on a Web page, a real journalist takes the time to present his opinions and reports in a more intelligent manner.
Interesting article on the first link, but it's kinda hard to take it seriously considering the plethora of spelling and grammar mistakes throughout. I mean, if the guy can't take the time to run his article through a spell checker, why should we think he took the time to do basic fact checking?
Look at it this way. The anesthesiologist, without having to crack open her skull to see why she was having headaches, was able to offer a solution which kept your wife's brain from being crushed against the inside of her skull and required nothing more invasive or damaging than drinking a Coke. If that isn't worth $300, I don't know what is.
You are 100% correct about how resolvers work. And if my search parameter had been "cox.net", it would've worked. But it wasn't, so it wouldn't. (I glossed over that, and a couple of other minor details, to get to the part about the guy being an idiot who didn't understand what he was talking about.)
Reminds me of the time I spoke with some moron tech support rep at Cox Cable Internet. The guy wanted me to type in "help" in the address bar of my browser. I asked him what he expected to happen. He said it should take me to the ISP's help section. I asked him "Do you know what a resolver is?" He said "huh?" I said "Transfer me to second level, you're out of your league."
Slashdot Mirror
You know what? If the choice is between suing a spammer for $1000, or sending them off to a pound-in-the-ass federal prison, I choose the latter for them. Besides, you can't sue someone who breaks into your house, but you can have them sent to jail.
Um, I'm pretty sure the PTO gets paid whether your patent is granted or not. So there's no profit motive for them in granting patents.
Actually, I think those were the records of your conviction for child molestation. They were accidentily destroyed in a fire. Too bad you can't prove it didn't happen now.
Depends. If you do well, you'll most get endorsements at some point, and possibly go on to be a commentator. Also, spending years being a professional competitor hones skills useful in all sorts of professions, most of them sales related. Ever notice how many insurance agents are former amateur athletes?
Voting is anonymous because only the voting registration people know which unique ID's go to which people, people get new ID's for each election.
How hard would it be for the police to get access to this system? Answer: not at all. Which means if some nutjob seized power and tried to round up all the people who voted for his opponent, it would be trivial to find them all.
Anonymous voting is important for more reasons than just keeping people from buying votes (which can be done even with anonymity).
Please, dont' say "America". Canada is part of America. Mexico too, as is Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, etc. Don't bring us into this. Say United States of America. Thanks. :)
So when Muslim fanatics start chanting "Death to America!" do you think they mean you, or just people in the United States?
Current population of the US = 270m-ish. Current population of Europe = 730m
:)
I guess that depends on what value you use for "Europe". I just did some quick fact checking at the CIA World Factbook, and the member countries of the EU total 375.25 million people. Still more than the US, but not three times as many.
That said, there's no doubt Europe is an economic powerhouse. Luckily for us, y'all have no military to speak of, so once we over here get our act together and come after you, there won't be anything you can do to stop it.
I can see my house('s network) from here!
I wonder which newspaper that reporter will end up working for next?
DHS 34 F
Who's surprised that the department charged with protecting our nation's infrastructure got the lowest score?
Tell me again that government is the answer to all life's problems.
3) hacked into debt(identity theft) through the place that controls employment, etc...
Actually, DHHS controls medicare and related programs, not unemployment. Unemployment details are left at the state level down here. Though if the IRS (part of the Treasury deparment) were hacked, you would get completely screwed. (DHHS is also the office of the Surgeon General, so maybe tobacco companies could use this to get a ringing endorsement.)
Also, the State Department controls things like visas, so hacking in there could be a step to getting into the country in the first place.
Hacking the Interior and Agriculture departments could be useful to get yourself some free money. They both have pretty large budgets for either grants or subsidies. I believe the Indian Bureau is part of the Interior, too, so maybe some random tribe could use it to get more money.
Housing and Urban Development gives money to poor people in the inner city, so someone could easily use them to embezzle obscene amounts of money.
The one I'm most scared of is the Department of Energy. They're responsible for keeping nuclear weapons from being smuggled into the country. If someone tried to float a nuke up the Chesapeake, for instance, the boys in the Energy Department have the tools to notice it and alert the Navy and Coast Guard. So getting root there means you can wave your fingers and tell everyone "this is not the tanker you're looking for."
Wasn't there some agreement/policy about not landing/crashing shit into Europa and possibly contaminating it with Earth bacteria (or nuclear fuel/waste as the case may be)?
Yes, I believe the full text of the treaty was something like: All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there.
Though I could be wrong.
Or alternatively that nuclear material could be the neccesary kick that life there needs.
A far more likely outcome would be that the lifeforms of Europa would see a nuclear probe crashing into their planet as some sort of terrorist attack, or overt military action. It would only be a matter of time before their scientists developed rockets of their own to answer the threat posed by the strange creatures living within the the dangerous inner planet ring of the Sun. We would all be doomed, doomed I say!
Of course this is preposterous, but no more so than thinking a nuclear reactor would kick start life on a planet covered by ice sheets hundreds of miles thick. The probe would never even reach the liquid water in the first place, let alone interact with any amino acids floating in it.
First, I never said the author was stupid. I said he was unprofessional. I'm not equating spelling with intelligence, I'm equating the ability to spell check (not even the ability to spell, but the ability to hit 'F7' in Word) with being a professional journalist.
Second, I didn't say his facts were wrong, I said they're questionable (if he can't check his spelling, why should we believe he checks his facts?).
Lastly, it's not "bade up" conjecture that the author is sloppy, his writing is there for the world to see. He has countless spelling and grammar errors, of the type that a fourth grader would not make; by definition, his writing is sloppy.
Any time someone wishes to advance their opinion, it is incumbent upon them to present their argument in such a way that others find it compelling. The author wishes to challenge long held beliefs about the creation of Mosaic and Andreesen's part in that. Find, that's all well and good. But if you want to change someone's mind, *all* of the burden of proof is at your feet. I'm under no burden to believe for a second anything some random joe with a Web site wishes to purport. Reference a linked article to the Hollow World theory in a recent Slashdot article, should I automatically assume there's validity to their theory just because they published it on a Web page? Similarly, the author of this article wants me to believe Andreesen did not, in fact, invent Mosaic from whole clothe. I really don't care if he did or didn't, it won't change my life either way. So if he wants me to read his entire text and come away thinking "hmm, maybe he's got something here" he needs to spend a little more time writing up his piece in an intelligent and professional manner, and a little less time attacking people who criticize him on a blog (oops, did I give away your little secret?).
I could quote Churchill or the U.S> Constitution w.r.t. spelling...
Yes, please do. Please point out spelling mistakes made by Sir Winston or the Framers. Of course, I'm sure someone else will gladly point out that American standard and British standard English have different spelling conventions, so what you think are spelling mistakes are probably actually correct. Also remember that American standard English wasn't formalized until after the Revolution, so presumed spelling mistakes in the Constitution are probably also correct.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't bother reading the second linked article because the first was so bad, I assumed the second would just be more of the same. That's what happens when you post something with no credibility, it directly impacts totally unrelated items just because they happen to be referenced together. This is why professional editors are so careful about fact checking and spelling errors: one bad article can tarnish an entire organization (witness the recent problems the NY Times has had because of one bad journalist faking datelines).
The two are intimately related. If someone can't take the time to spell check a document, it means they are sloppy. And if you're sloppy in one area, you're probably sloppy in several. Also, spelling and grammar mistakes indicate a severe lack of professionalism. Again, this leads one to believe that there was no effective fact checking.
Face it: if you want to be taken seriously, you have to conduct yourself as a professional. Any nucklehead can throw up his opinions on a Web page, a real journalist takes the time to present his opinions and reports in a more intelligent manner.
Interesting article on the first link, but it's kinda hard to take it seriously considering the plethora of spelling and grammar mistakes throughout. I mean, if the guy can't take the time to run his article through a spell checker, why should we think he took the time to do basic fact checking?
They have lots of mountains that could be hollowed out to make ideal bad-guy secret lairs.
There's already one there.
Find a problem that has already been solved, and re-solve it.
Hey, isn't that Sourceforge's tagline?
Look at it this way. The anesthesiologist, without having to crack open her skull to see why she was having headaches, was able to offer a solution which kept your wife's brain from being crushed against the inside of her skull and required nothing more invasive or damaging than drinking a Coke. If that isn't worth $300, I don't know what is.
Shouldn't they have named her "6 of 9"? At least then there would be no confusion over where they got the idea.
It'll fail after a few seasons of low ratings.
Not unlike its predecessor.
You are 100% correct about how resolvers work. And if my search parameter had been "cox.net", it would've worked. But it wasn't, so it wouldn't. (I glossed over that, and a couple of other minor details, to get to the part about the guy being an idiot who didn't understand what he was talking about.)
Reminds me of the time I spoke with some moron tech support rep at Cox Cable Internet. The guy wanted me to type in "help" in the address bar of my browser. I asked him what he expected to happen. He said it should take me to the ISP's help section. I asked him "Do you know what a resolver is?" He said "huh?" I said "Transfer me to second level, you're out of your league."
Legal department != company. Otherwise, the legal department would just go on break, and the company would never be liable for anything . . .
Careful, someone in Congress might get some ideas.