Because the lauched the fscking sat. That is why, lauch your own sat and you turn over 1/2 of the channels to public access.
Well, unfortunately we as a country have also given them a certain right (at the cost of $177 million dollars to both companies) to broadcast on all of those channels. I personally would say this was a rather cheap price - and that the cost that the FCC mandated to them could have, and probably should have, mandated some public uses. Why should we give them such a huge potential to make money from a public space at a one-time cost? Why not demand some of the service for our use back in the cost?
AHhh... and now it all makes sense. I had tried playing with 7734 in it's decimal form, never even occured to me to treat it like just a normal number. DOH!
What I really wanted to tackle was his point which said "If you have 3 cats , you name them. If you have 1000 cattle , you don't.". Whether you choose to name them yourself or not, it doesn't matter. Each and everyone is uniquely identifiable, by what's in the broadest sense a name.
The easy way to tackle this is to point out he's flat wrong. With cats you may give them a name with a word (Here Morris... time for a treat) but with cattle a direct tracking system is still required - how else would one keep track of an animals health history with a name? Is it the black cow with 3 spots on the left, 4 on the right, and that really cute spot on it's nose? Or is it cattle number #348? Just as one example, my grandparents who run a farm with cattle, prefer the latter method (even if they did give their dog a name).
Although I doubt they'd be selling their directory services (I don't even think this would be legal - as I'm sure the ODP data is copyrighted by AOL/Netscape - hence their ability to license it) a lot of their data has to come from the open directory project (ok, well, 1% of it needs to come from it). I would assume they would of spidered the ODP in it's entirity as a good basis for the rest of their search data. If they did this Yahoo is in a way getting to use the data.
I really think this is a violation persay - just as a search engine could have spidered www.dmoz.org and built that into their search results along with all the other sites. But it just strikes me as being peculier.
What I'm wondering is how this will impact Yahoo's use of the open directory. Currently Google uses the open directory in their search results, and you can visit it at directory.google.com, and now Yahoo's using Google's search results? How many of these search results are going to be coming from The Open Directory, or at least spidered due to the work of the volunteers at the ODP? In some warped way Yahoo may have the largest index again.
Read: "who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody"
Recollect: some illegal drugs are: heroin and pcp.
Interpret: therefore, we can interpret the above as: heroin addiction is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody. pcp is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody.
Recall: Jimi Hendrix choking on his own vomit. The end of Sublime. Trainspotting. My brother.
React: It's about the death toll. It's about people DYING. It's about watching people you love die, slowly. It's about pain, and suffering, and loss.
The plain fact of the matter is that both PCP and heroin can be used by people and not harm anyone. Certainly drugs can cause casualties, but so do many other things that we are perfectly willing to allow adults to use - cars, airplanes, boats, trains, perscription drugs, electrical appliances, garbage disposals, electrical outlets, electricity by it's self, baseball bats, hockey sticks, hockey pucks, blunt objects, throwable objects, etc.. etc.. etc..
The list goes on and on. We don't outlaw these things just because they have a potential to cause damage.
We outlaw acts which cause damage to others, not inanimate objects. By this logic not only should we outlaw all of the above, but in the same line of outlawing herbs and chemicals we should outlaw poison ivy (which incidently no one ever tries to get).
Finally, if this is about the death toll, and "pain, and suffering, and loss" is prison a better solution to this? Is it better to lose your loved one to a drug than to lose them to the U.S. Prison system? Isn't this a health problem, that needs to be dealt with by medical professionals, and not a legal problem? Do we lock up people who slip on ice and break their leg (Sorry son, but you know it was dangerous to be walking when it was snowing outside. Now we're going to have to put you in jain ontop of your broken leg).
Slashdot Mirror
Because the lauched the fscking sat. That is why, lauch your own sat and you turn over 1/2 of the channels to public access.
Well, unfortunately we as a country have also given them a certain right (at the cost of $177 million dollars to both companies) to broadcast on all of those channels. I personally would say this was a rather cheap price - and that the cost that the FCC mandated to them could have, and probably should have, mandated some public uses. Why should we give them such a huge potential to make money from a public space at a one-time cost? Why not demand some of the service for our use back in the cost?
AHhh... and now it all makes sense. I had tried playing with 7734 in it's decimal form, never even occured to me to treat it like just a normal number. DOH!
Would someone kindly explain the significance of "029A:7734:029A:7734..." to me? Thank you.
The 29A is 666, but I don't have a clue what 7734 is - it's 30516 in decimal, but what signifigance could 30516 possibly have?
What I really wanted to tackle was his point which said "If you have 3 cats , you name them. If you have 1000 cattle , you don't.". Whether you choose to name them yourself or not, it doesn't matter. Each and everyone is uniquely identifiable, by what's in the broadest sense a name.
The easy way to tackle this is to point out he's flat wrong. With cats you may give them a name with a word (Here Morris... time for a treat) but with cattle a direct tracking system is still required - how else would one keep track of an animals health history with a name? Is it the black cow with 3 spots on the left, 4 on the right, and that really cute spot on it's nose? Or is it cattle number #348? Just as one example, my grandparents who run a farm with cattle, prefer the latter method (even if they did give their dog a name).
Although I doubt they'd be selling their directory services (I don't even think this would be legal - as I'm sure the ODP data is copyrighted by AOL/Netscape - hence their ability to license it) a lot of their data has to come from the open directory project (ok, well, 1% of it needs to come from it). I would assume they would of spidered the ODP in it's entirity as a good basis for the rest of their search data. If they did this Yahoo is in a way getting to use the data.
I really think this is a violation persay - just as a search engine could have spidered www.dmoz.org and built that into their search results along with all the other sites. But it just strikes me as being peculier.
What I'm wondering is how this will impact Yahoo's use of the open directory. Currently Google uses the open directory in their search results, and you can visit it at directory.google.com, and now Yahoo's using Google's search results? How many of these search results are going to be coming from The Open Directory, or at least spidered due to the work of the volunteers at the ODP? In some warped way Yahoo may have the largest index again.
Read: "who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody"
Recollect: some illegal drugs are: heroin and pcp.
Interpret: therefore, we can interpret the above as: heroin addiction is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody.
pcp is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody.
Recall: Jimi Hendrix choking on his own vomit. The end of Sublime. Trainspotting. My brother.
React: It's about the death toll. It's about people DYING. It's about watching people you love die, slowly. It's about pain, and suffering, and loss.
The plain fact of the matter is that both PCP and heroin can be used by people and not harm anyone. Certainly drugs can cause casualties, but so do many other things that we are perfectly willing to allow adults to use - cars, airplanes, boats, trains, perscription drugs, electrical appliances, garbage disposals, electrical outlets, electricity by it's self, baseball bats, hockey sticks, hockey pucks, blunt objects, throwable objects, etc.. etc.. etc..
The list goes on and on. We don't outlaw these things just because they have a potential to cause damage.
We outlaw acts which cause damage to others, not inanimate objects. By this logic not only should we outlaw all of the above, but in the same line of outlawing herbs and chemicals we should outlaw poison ivy (which incidently no one ever tries to get).
Finally, if this is about the death toll, and "pain, and suffering, and loss" is prison a better solution to this? Is it better to lose your loved one to a drug than to lose them to the U.S. Prison system? Isn't this a health problem, that needs to be dealt with by medical professionals, and not a legal problem? Do we lock up people who slip on ice and break their leg (Sorry son, but you know it was dangerous to be walking when it was snowing outside. Now we're going to have to put you in jain ontop of your broken leg).