No. I ascribe "keeping us safe" (in an open-ended woolly-thinking sort of a way) to George Bush in exactly the same way that I ascribe "make the world safe for democracy" to Woodrow Wilson. Each of them (OK, Bush's speech writers) knew EXACTLY where the course of their actions would take us.
When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government? Oh, that's right, George Bush and John Ashcroft used that as an excuse to make us live in a police state right after 9/11. Now it has spread to the whole democratic West. Good thing the terrorists didn't win.
At least the US version will explain that GCHQ means "Government Communications Headquarters" i.e.: the Brit version (SIGINT) of the NSA. Also, guaranteed no boobies, so win/win.
A lawyer dies and goes to heaven (hey, it sometimes happens).
At the pearly gates, he's greeted by St. Peter and a huge heavenly choir, singing.
Lawyer says "What's with the big turnout?".
St. Peter says "We've had popes and saints and kings arrive here, but never someone who's 196 years old."
Lawyer says "What are you talking about? I'm 62."
St. Peter says "They must have added up your billing hours instead".
Here's a shocking stat I came across just yesterday: the richest 85 PEOPLE have as much wealth as the bottom HALF the world population. That's 85 == 3.5 BILLION. citation[PDF warning]
Almost HALF of the world's wealth is owned by one percent of the population.
In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
Unfortunately, I have somewhere to be, or I'd be writing a much longer epistle.
That's just because this particular case uses negative logic. Try substituting "libel/slander" for "patent infringer":
Normal case:
Plaintiff: "He slandered me!"
Defendant: "No I didn't!"
This case:
Plaintiff: "I didn't slander him!"
Defendant: "Yes you did!"
In either case, it seems overwhelmingly logical and obvious that the burden of proof is on the person claiming they were slandered, irrespective of whether they're the plaintiff or defendant.
I _cannot wait_ to see how much hilarity ensues in the Gentoo world, where it's real common for random clowns with no debugging (or bug reporting) ability to have -Oeverything set.
And that's true: for microcontrollers. Knowing the assembly language is useful because you can actually know what is going to happen next in terms of instructions fetched, decoded and executed. It's a whole different ballgame with multiple cores, dynamic scheduling, out-of-order execution, several layers of on-die cache and pre-executed branches. While the compiler (in this case) may not always get it 100% right (yet), at least it's going to do things *consistently*.
Not the manufacturers per se, but expect fleet operators and car-rental companies to fight this tooth and nail. Meanwhile, the insurance companies will offer cheaper policies if you waive your rights on this, and, of course, opposing lawyers will subpena your black box records in every little accident.
Slashdot Mirror
if (getContribution(ATT) > getContribution(COMCAST))
vote(ATT);
else
vote(COMCAST);
That sort of thing? That's what we have now.
I think this is a more pertinent answer to his question.
WARN: THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM...
stupid caps filter, it's supposed to be all in caps
And Deepwater Horizon was 77km (48 miles) from shore. This just in: ocean currents move stuff around.
No. I ascribe "keeping us safe" (in an open-ended woolly-thinking sort of a way) to George Bush in exactly the same way that I ascribe "make the world safe for democracy" to Woodrow Wilson. Each of them (OK, Bush's speech writers) knew EXACTLY where the course of their actions would take us.
When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government? Oh, that's right, George Bush and John Ashcroft used that as an excuse to make us live in a police state right after 9/11. Now it has spread to the whole democratic West. Good thing the terrorists didn't win.
At least the US version will explain that GCHQ means "Government Communications Headquarters" i.e.: the Brit version (SIGINT) of the NSA. Also, guaranteed no boobies, so win/win.
I see that you're "aquisitionally challenged" yourself.
Can someone with a thermodynamics background please explain to me how we can extract energy from Japanese cartoons?
A lawyer dies and goes to heaven (hey, it sometimes happens).
At the pearly gates, he's greeted by St. Peter and a huge heavenly choir, singing.
Lawyer says "What's with the big turnout?".
St. Peter says "We've had popes and saints and kings arrive here, but never someone who's 196 years old."
Lawyer says "What are you talking about? I'm 62."
St. Peter says "They must have added up your billing hours instead".
Reply hazy, ask again later.
Yeah, they lost me at "Gartner predicts...".
The Fendahl had it coming. The Time Lords had no choice.
Here's a shocking stat I came across just yesterday: the richest 85 PEOPLE have as much wealth as the bottom HALF the world population. That's 85 == 3.5 BILLION. citation[PDF warning]
Almost HALF of the world's wealth is owned by one percent of the population.
In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
Unfortunately, I have somewhere to be, or I'd be writing a much longer epistle.
That's just because this particular case uses negative logic. Try substituting "libel/slander" for "patent infringer":
Normal case:
Plaintiff: "He slandered me!"
Defendant: "No I didn't!"
This case:
Plaintiff: "I didn't slander him!"
Defendant: "Yes you did!"
In either case, it seems overwhelmingly logical and obvious that the burden of proof is on the person claiming they were slandered, irrespective of whether they're the plaintiff or defendant.
Why do electorates keep falling for this "Government doesn't work! Vote for me, and I'll PROVE it!" crap?
I _cannot wait_ to see how much hilarity ensues in the Gentoo world, where it's real common for random clowns with no debugging (or bug reporting) ability to have -Oeverything set.
And that's true: for microcontrollers. Knowing the assembly language is useful because you can actually know what is going to happen next in terms of instructions fetched, decoded and executed. It's a whole different ballgame with multiple cores, dynamic scheduling, out-of-order execution, several layers of on-die cache and pre-executed branches. While the compiler (in this case) may not always get it 100% right (yet), at least it's going to do things *consistently*.
99.2% of the people who use the phrase "mission critical" don't have anything "mission critical".
Not the manufacturers per se, but expect fleet operators and car-rental companies to fight this tooth and nail. Meanwhile, the insurance companies will offer cheaper policies if you waive your rights on this, and, of course, opposing lawyers will subpena your black box records in every little accident.
Posessing a weaponized hosts file makes you a terrist. Guantonamo for you.
OK. LOLs on that one.
Actually, a new, revolutionary "nano" douchebag would be more scientifically feasable than this twaddle.
Wouldn't the USB driver have to be compromised as well?
Wrong book.