You were lucky! All I had was a lousy National Endowment for the Arts. Every day I'd have some jerkoff smearing my walls with feces in the shape of the Virgin Mary in exchange for grant money. It was a nightmare.
It's so you can spam them all asking for work after you get fired for spending too much time on Slashdot. So really, Slashdot and LinkedIn are kind of like sister sites.
The Presidency has evolved significantly from the days of the Constitutional Convention, and has been doing so pretty much continuously since Washington. What you're describing is a very outdated view of the Presidency, and does not reflect at all what people expect out of the President these days. People expect the President to guide policymaking (not make policy, but guide the Congress as to what they should be focusing on), as well as act in a leadership role in any number of different areas. Like it or not, people expect the President to be a leader.
That being said, the expansion of the powers and responsibilities of the executive has been going on since the beginning, and whether or not the President is on Facebook has little to no impact on that. Social networking will not appreciably affect the power of the Presidency, as the President already has the power to command the nation's attention whenever he feels like it. Therefore, he already is, by default, the "loudest squeak" if he chooses to be so.
His comment is much more helpful and informative than the half-baked nonsense passing for "expert opinion" elsewhere in this thread. People read news articles and opinion pieces about space travel and think they're expertly qualified to spout off about it. At least the AC is honest.
He's already making noise about trying to slow down the approval process in China and Russia. If he wanted to continue to have any control over his baby, he shouldn't have cashed out. Anyone who has the urge to feel sorry for Monty in any of this should remember just how much money he got for selling MySQL in the first place.
The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction, whether citizens or not. However, as stated by another reply to your post, the Supreme Court has ruled, rightly or wrongly, that it does not apply to border searches. So, by current law, the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status.
It's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) are granted only to citizens. The Constitution makes distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" all over the place. When the Constitution refers to "persons" or "people" (as it does in the fourth amendment), it is referring to ALL people, citizen or not. The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights, which are rights granted to all people (or at least all white males in their day) by their Creator. The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them, but to prevent the government from infringing on them.
How much the government has infringed on them anyway is, of course, a matter of much debate.
Charitable organizations, like any organization, need permanent staff to operate efficiently. You might get college kids to work for you over the summer for nothing but room and board, but no one will work for you on any kind of long-term basis for that. If you want long-term employees, particularly skilled employees, you have to pay for them. Sure, they might work for you for less than they could get in the private sector (and many do), but they still need money to feed their own families.
Saying you refuse to give to any charities because there may be some amount of waste in them is just a way for you to rationalize your own selfishness. The fact is these organizations do far more good than any of us would be capable of or willing to do on our own. Because we won't or can't go out and dig new wells in Africa or help rebuild houses in Haiti or any of the other things these charities do, we give money to them to help them do it instead. They in turn hire people who know how to do this stuff in the most effective and efficient way possible.
That's kind of funny, because historically translucency and fog have been used to limit the number of things that had to be rendered on screen, and to reduce the detail needed on each one. Most games that advertised levels in big open areas tended to obscure the open areas with fog so they wouldn't need ridiculously expensive hardware to render them. Similarly, windows would be translucent rather than transparent in order to simplify the rendering of stuff on the other side of them.
As long as you're paying enough attention to drop the money into the collection plate when it comes along, you can do whatever you want. Folding money only, cheapskate.
If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page? Set everything to public on your own page, show everyone how silly privacy concerns are.
You said yourself, early in this unnecessarily long article, that the wording and URLs varied in these autoreplies. So, it seems like Microsoft would have to do more than just search for a particular string, and they'd run a very real risk of either not getting them all or, much worse, accidentally deleting someone's legitimate autoreply. Not to mention, just deleting autoreplies from the affected accounts isn't going to be a solution, because the spammers can just create new ones continually. I would imagine if this is as major a problem as you seem to think it is, someone at Hotmail is trying to figure out a good solution.
This is a new and novel form of spamming, and presumably the spammers are using Hotmail in particular because they've managed to find an easy way to break into hotmail accounts in particular, and don't have the scripts written or whatever to break into yahoo, gmail, or other accounts. Hotmail has lots of users, if you can break into them, you've likely got enough accounts that you don't need to break into the others. Maybe Hotmail will figure out a way to combat this at some point, and the spammers will move on to another provider.
Also, this whole article seems like an overly long and drawn-out way to advertise your own mailing list. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but that's how it seemed to me.
Depends on your definition of "nearing". Private companies have, so far, sent a man into suborbital flight (technically "space", but not high enough to do anything useful, like sustain an orbit). That was almost 6 years ago. Since then, there's been a lot of talk about space tourism, but nothing concrete has materialized. Sure, some companies have taken deposits from people who want to go up, but it's still all suborbital, and it's still unknown when they'll actually make even that happen. They've talked a big game, and taken some pictures of some nice looking airplanes like the carrier for SpaceShip Two, but it's still basically all vapor so far.
Yes, private companies are pretty good at sending small satellites into orbit, but there's no real indication they'll be able to send people even into LEO anytime soon, and you can forget about them doing any kind of exploration.
Sure, but "assless chaps" is funnier than "chaps". It also implies the chaps are worn without pants, thus leaving the ass exposed. It's a way to differentiate the chaps a cowboy would wear, over the jeans, versus the chaps worn at gay discos in the 1970s, without jeans. Even though the chaps in question may be identical articles of clothing, the word "assless" connotes a very different style of dress.
No no, they mean the Pearl River Deli. It's on the East Side, and their pastrami on rye is to die for. I don't know how they got a train to go there all the way from China, but it sounds like I'm going to have to start getting my lunch earlier to beat the rush!
There's also at least a small chance that many of the kernel hackers who work on Linux today would have been working on the Hurd kernel. As it happened, the release of Linux essentially killed Hurd, although it's technically still around.
Damn Slashdot and its lack of an "edit" button...see my reply to the earlier poster.
Re:For once, I'm fine with being locked out...
on
Does Santa Hate Linux?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Doh. What I meant to say is Santa is used as a symbol in Turkey, which is primarily Muslim. Sorry about that.
Re:For once, I'm fine with being locked out...
on
Does Santa Hate Linux?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Norad Tracks Santa uses 1,200 volunteers and money from several corporate sponsors. Only 1 person is assigned from Norad to manage it year-round, and it's not his/her full time job.
None of your precious tax money is being used for this. Santa is also not a Christian symbol at all anymore, but is really the symbol of the secular Christmas. Most people in the West who are not Jewish celebrate Christmas, with or without the religious part. Hell, Santa is huge in Japan, and they have very few Christians there. There was a story on CNN earlier today about how Santa is used there as a symbol to celebrate the New Year, and they're primarily Muslims.
I'm sorry you had a bunch of crappy Christmases as a child, but there's no need to take it out on everyone else.
We have to send people to explore places we haven't been already. Like I said, nobody cares about people going to places we've already been (the moon), and nobody cares about sending tiny robots to explore for us. Sending people to explore is exciting, though.
Of course, there's also a groundswell of feeling in this country that government shouldn't do anything at all, and certainly shouldn't spend any money; and private enterprise doesn't care about space outside of orbiting the Earth with satellites, so we're kind of stuck.
Progress requires funding. Funding requires public interest. Public interest can be generated using the methods I spoke of in my original post.
Sure, eventually progress will occur using our current methods, but it will take forever. The only way to get the funding to generate progress in a desirable time period (say, fast enough for me to vacation on Mars before I die) is to spend more money, which won't happen until it becomes politically popular to do so.
Okay, and now I notice the article is actually about solving scientific problems, not generating interest. Of course, without public interest, there's no way in the world NASA would ever get enough funding to do anywhere near that many launches, so the point still stands.
Slashdot Mirror
You were lucky! All I had was a lousy National Endowment for the Arts. Every day I'd have some jerkoff smearing my walls with feces in the shape of the Virgin Mary in exchange for grant money. It was a nightmare.
It's so you can spam them all asking for work after you get fired for spending too much time on Slashdot. So really, Slashdot and LinkedIn are kind of like sister sites.
The Presidency has evolved significantly from the days of the Constitutional Convention, and has been doing so pretty much continuously since Washington. What you're describing is a very outdated view of the Presidency, and does not reflect at all what people expect out of the President these days. People expect the President to guide policymaking (not make policy, but guide the Congress as to what they should be focusing on), as well as act in a leadership role in any number of different areas. Like it or not, people expect the President to be a leader.
That being said, the expansion of the powers and responsibilities of the executive has been going on since the beginning, and whether or not the President is on Facebook has little to no impact on that. Social networking will not appreciably affect the power of the Presidency, as the President already has the power to command the nation's attention whenever he feels like it. Therefore, he already is, by default, the "loudest squeak" if he chooses to be so.
His comment is much more helpful and informative than the half-baked nonsense passing for "expert opinion" elsewhere in this thread. People read news articles and opinion pieces about space travel and think they're expertly qualified to spout off about it. At least the AC is honest.
He's already making noise about trying to slow down the approval process in China and Russia. If he wanted to continue to have any control over his baby, he shouldn't have cashed out. Anyone who has the urge to feel sorry for Monty in any of this should remember just how much money he got for selling MySQL in the first place.
The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction, whether citizens or not. However, as stated by another reply to your post, the Supreme Court has ruled, rightly or wrongly, that it does not apply to border searches. So, by current law, the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status.
It's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) are granted only to citizens. The Constitution makes distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" all over the place. When the Constitution refers to "persons" or "people" (as it does in the fourth amendment), it is referring to ALL people, citizen or not. The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights, which are rights granted to all people (or at least all white males in their day) by their Creator. The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them, but to prevent the government from infringing on them.
How much the government has infringed on them anyway is, of course, a matter of much debate.
Charitable organizations, like any organization, need permanent staff to operate efficiently. You might get college kids to work for you over the summer for nothing but room and board, but no one will work for you on any kind of long-term basis for that. If you want long-term employees, particularly skilled employees, you have to pay for them. Sure, they might work for you for less than they could get in the private sector (and many do), but they still need money to feed their own families.
Saying you refuse to give to any charities because there may be some amount of waste in them is just a way for you to rationalize your own selfishness. The fact is these organizations do far more good than any of us would be capable of or willing to do on our own. Because we won't or can't go out and dig new wells in Africa or help rebuild houses in Haiti or any of the other things these charities do, we give money to them to help them do it instead. They in turn hire people who know how to do this stuff in the most effective and efficient way possible.
That's kind of funny, because historically translucency and fog have been used to limit the number of things that had to be rendered on screen, and to reduce the detail needed on each one. Most games that advertised levels in big open areas tended to obscure the open areas with fog so they wouldn't need ridiculously expensive hardware to render them. Similarly, windows would be translucent rather than transparent in order to simplify the rendering of stuff on the other side of them.
As long as you're paying enough attention to drop the money into the collection plate when it comes along, you can do whatever you want. Folding money only, cheapskate.
If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page? Set everything to public on your own page, show everyone how silly privacy concerns are.
You said yourself, early in this unnecessarily long article, that the wording and URLs varied in these autoreplies. So, it seems like Microsoft would have to do more than just search for a particular string, and they'd run a very real risk of either not getting them all or, much worse, accidentally deleting someone's legitimate autoreply. Not to mention, just deleting autoreplies from the affected accounts isn't going to be a solution, because the spammers can just create new ones continually. I would imagine if this is as major a problem as you seem to think it is, someone at Hotmail is trying to figure out a good solution.
This is a new and novel form of spamming, and presumably the spammers are using Hotmail in particular because they've managed to find an easy way to break into hotmail accounts in particular, and don't have the scripts written or whatever to break into yahoo, gmail, or other accounts. Hotmail has lots of users, if you can break into them, you've likely got enough accounts that you don't need to break into the others. Maybe Hotmail will figure out a way to combat this at some point, and the spammers will move on to another provider.
Also, this whole article seems like an overly long and drawn-out way to advertise your own mailing list. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but that's how it seemed to me.
I can send you some duct tape if you'd like...
Depends on your definition of "nearing". Private companies have, so far, sent a man into suborbital flight (technically "space", but not high enough to do anything useful, like sustain an orbit). That was almost 6 years ago. Since then, there's been a lot of talk about space tourism, but nothing concrete has materialized. Sure, some companies have taken deposits from people who want to go up, but it's still all suborbital, and it's still unknown when they'll actually make even that happen. They've talked a big game, and taken some pictures of some nice looking airplanes like the carrier for SpaceShip Two, but it's still basically all vapor so far.
Yes, private companies are pretty good at sending small satellites into orbit, but there's no real indication they'll be able to send people even into LEO anytime soon, and you can forget about them doing any kind of exploration.
Tell me about it! President Garfield spent half the national budget on lasagna, for God's sake!
I think it's more likely that samzenpus is a cyborg sent from the future to kill Slashdot.
Sure, but "assless chaps" is funnier than "chaps". It also implies the chaps are worn without pants, thus leaving the ass exposed. It's a way to differentiate the chaps a cowboy would wear, over the jeans, versus the chaps worn at gay discos in the 1970s, without jeans. Even though the chaps in question may be identical articles of clothing, the word "assless" connotes a very different style of dress.
That was awesome! I want to go out and buy MS-DOS 5 Upgrade right now!
No no, they mean the Pearl River Deli. It's on the East Side, and their pastrami on rye is to die for. I don't know how they got a train to go there all the way from China, but it sounds like I'm going to have to start getting my lunch earlier to beat the rush!
There's also at least a small chance that many of the kernel hackers who work on Linux today would have been working on the Hurd kernel. As it happened, the release of Linux essentially killed Hurd, although it's technically still around.
Damn Slashdot and its lack of an "edit" button...see my reply to the earlier poster.
Doh. What I meant to say is Santa is used as a symbol in Turkey, which is primarily Muslim. Sorry about that.
Norad Tracks Santa uses 1,200 volunteers and money from several corporate sponsors. Only 1 person is assigned from Norad to manage it year-round, and it's not his/her full time job.
None of your precious tax money is being used for this. Santa is also not a Christian symbol at all anymore, but is really the symbol of the secular Christmas. Most people in the West who are not Jewish celebrate Christmas, with or without the religious part. Hell, Santa is huge in Japan, and they have very few Christians there. There was a story on CNN earlier today about how Santa is used there as a symbol to celebrate the New Year, and they're primarily Muslims.
I'm sorry you had a bunch of crappy Christmases as a child, but there's no need to take it out on everyone else.
We have to send people to explore places we haven't been already. Like I said, nobody cares about people going to places we've already been (the moon), and nobody cares about sending tiny robots to explore for us. Sending people to explore is exciting, though.
Of course, there's also a groundswell of feeling in this country that government shouldn't do anything at all, and certainly shouldn't spend any money; and private enterprise doesn't care about space outside of orbiting the Earth with satellites, so we're kind of stuck.
Progress requires funding. Funding requires public interest. Public interest can be generated using the methods I spoke of in my original post.
Sure, eventually progress will occur using our current methods, but it will take forever. The only way to get the funding to generate progress in a desirable time period (say, fast enough for me to vacation on Mars before I die) is to spend more money, which won't happen until it becomes politically popular to do so.
Okay, and now I notice the article is actually about solving scientific problems, not generating interest. Of course, without public interest, there's no way in the world NASA would ever get enough funding to do anywhere near that many launches, so the point still stands.