Actually, yes, I'd say you're wrong. Any news of any consequence ought to be checked out using at least 2 competing sources. Then you decide which is telling the truth.
Blindly believing any single source is just setting yourself up for disappointment...
"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."
How in the world is this useful? The idea that reading something that you might not agree with is "bad" is bad for you is incredible on a site that most people might think is open-minded.
Please! Read this! If you ask me (which of course noone did, hehe) I'd think everyone here/ought/ to read it just to see the community's reputation from another point of view.
I think you meant to say "You're stupid" not "Your". So look in the mirror.
Secondly, the "big difference" is that Ctrl-Esc brings up the start menu, puts the window focus on said start menu, and then the "r" key is the keyboard shortcut. It's not some special modifier.
It's like hitting alt, then f, then s when you're in notepad.
Sorry man, you just contradicted yourself. First, you say the win key is "a unique modifier" then proceed with a litany of Win+keys that do shit, including Win+R to "Run".
Then in the next sentence, ahhh this is funny, you say without the Win key you have to do Ctrl-Esc-R to do the same thing.
WHICH IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL GUY SAID! Win key = Ctrl-Esc!!
Hooo man, that's funny. Where's a mod point when I need one.:)
Fair enough, but the problem with that is the the dish prices are "going up" the same way as the cable prices... albeit perhaps not as much in some parts of the country.
If you don't watch TV often, why in the world would you pay for digital cable? I don't understand why people pay an arm and a leg for this crap.:)
As I think about it though, everything tech-related keeps getting cheaper as time goes by. Just wait a few years and we'll have more connectivity than we know what to do with. People are just impatient, I guess.
What the fuck do RFID tags on books have to do with the PATRIOT Act, specifically? Is there some provision in the act that I missed that says, "Ashcroft and his cronies will make RFIDs available for all industries so we can track them damn liberals"?
RFID is a technology whose time has come, nothing more, nothing less. Take your anti-Ashcroft tinfoil hat off, it's a nice sunny day.
Turning off your net connection is a perfectly valid solution. You don't NEED email, you WANT it. If spam is too nasty, just don't get any more. Find a new way to communicate with people. I hear telephones work pretty well.
Bouncing emails back is not impossible. Spamassassin doesn't bounce emails, but a similar solution could. Take spam labeled as such from spamassassin and send it back as if it bounced.
Turn of your internet connection. Bounce all emails to spammed addresses (causes a little more bandwidth at first, but do you think spammers will continue to hammer addresses that bounce?).
Yes, because the war on drugs has reduced the average big-time drug cartel's revenue. I guess they're only able to afford 1 or 2 Ferraris for their chases with Crockett and Tubbs...
I don't think you'll be able to legislate spam out of existance. In fact, I know so. There are, let's just round it off, nearly 200 nations in the world.
There is no way every one of them has laws (with teeth to stop it. And hey, look how well laws against murder work!!), and there's no way the U.S. diplomats are going to say, "No, we'll stop our billion dollar trade unless you stop your spammers."
Spam is so tiny a problem in comparison to what the trade diplomats are really working on... Compare spam to the steel industry, or agriculture, for example.
The onus IS on the users, to work on their ISP's to filter spam, and to filter it themselves, and to NOT CLICK ON THEM!!
Save us, government! After you protect us from spam, keep us from riding merry-go-rounds, put up fences to keep us away from dangerous natural sites (that Grand Canyon is too dangerous for people to walk near), and then shut down that vile fast food industry, they're just trying to make us all fat slobs! And keep wasting billions on the war on drugs, that's been going SOOOO well.
Government help should be limited to fraud, and that's about it. "Wasted bandwidth", give me a break, there are technological solutions.
I hate to say RTFA, but RTFA. They are planning 10% efficiency (as the other guy said), just making them REALLY GODDAMN CHEAP compared to current ones.
Maybe if a few more people would create their own damn jobs...
It shocks me that people like you believe jobs are just "there" and should be filled. Here's some information you should remember: For each job, there's someone out there who's taken a chance at creating it.
Why not try to become the guy who creates the jobs? Are you afraid to do so? There are dozens of SBA grants and assistance programs around. There are dozens of IDAs and other local government agencies to help out.
Instead of whining about it and blaming the Republicrats, why not get out there and start something of your own? Take the chance!
Reread your history. FDR's policies extended the great depression, didn't mitigate or end it quickly. A number of new historical economic analyses demonstrate it pretty clearly.
Well, fair enough: I suppose if religion wasn't around, leaders would find other reasons to have their citizens kill each other... I suppose it's a good argument for personal, internalized 'religion'.
Side note: agreed. I could start calling you names if you thought it'd feel more like/.:) My 'state of mind' comment was directed at religion in general, which turns me off. I'm pretty optimistic about the world in general.
Alright, I'm no historical scholar, but let me ask some questions you might be able to answer (honest questions, not trying to be snide here):
Did the templars and others who fought the Crusades long after they started fight for land and power? Or did they truly believe they were doing god's work?
Are Islamic militants in Israel/Palestine NOT fighting because they are Islamic militants? Occurs to me they blow themselves to bits entirely because of their religion.
And whatever the root cause is (power grab, etc), isn't the fact that religion is used to get the consent of the populace indicative of religion's power to drive people to war?
Obviously, if everyone followed the "love thy neighbor" crap, the world would be a different place... (and yeah, 'crap' is indicative of my general state of mind;))
See, that's where philosophy starts to get all hazy and mind boggling. "a truth" is the entire point I was trying to make. Given any single issue, there can be more than one "truth" but there can be only one set of "facts".
If everyone understood the facts behind any issue, the resolution of that issue would be simple and obvious.
And I believe reason and logic are The Way (with the Scientific Method being the main tool to reach Nirvana;)).
Okay, you're right, belief in "truth" causes all wars, I should not have bothered with the "religious" distinction.
But it wasn't unthinking. In answer to your question, which do I hate, wars or religion, I'd have to start with religion, because it causes more hatred and war than any other social interaction.
The Crusades and the Inquisition (which nobody expected, of course:))/were/ about religion in the sense that they were brought about in the/name/ of religion. You think anyone would have been trying to conquer the "Holy Lands" if they didn't think they were "Holy"?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, yes, I'd say you're wrong. Any news of any consequence ought to be checked out using at least 2 competing sources. Then you decide which is telling the truth.
Blindly believing any single source is just setting yourself up for disappointment...
"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."
/ought/ to read it just to see the community's reputation from another point of view.
How in the world is this useful? The idea that reading something that you might not agree with is "bad" is bad for you is incredible on a site that most people might think is open-minded.
Please! Read this! If you ask me (which of course noone did, hehe) I'd think everyone here
Wow, pure genius at work here.
I think you meant to say "You're stupid" not "Your". So look in the mirror.
Secondly, the "big difference" is that Ctrl-Esc brings up the start menu, puts the window focus on said start menu, and then the "r" key is the keyboard shortcut. It's not some special modifier.
It's like hitting alt, then f, then s when you're in notepad.
Learn to use a fucking computer dickweed.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHA
:)
Sorry man, you just contradicted yourself. First, you say the win key is "a unique modifier" then proceed with a litany of Win+keys that do shit, including Win+R to "Run".
Then in the next sentence, ahhh this is funny, you say without the Win key you have to do Ctrl-Esc-R to do the same thing.
WHICH IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL GUY SAID! Win key = Ctrl-Esc!!
Hooo man, that's funny. Where's a mod point when I need one.
Fair enough, but the problem with that is the the dish prices are "going up" the same way as the cable prices... albeit perhaps not as much in some parts of the country.
If you don't watch TV often, why in the world would you pay for digital cable? I don't understand why people pay an arm and a leg for this crap. :)
As I think about it though, everything tech-related keeps getting cheaper as time goes by. Just wait a few years and we'll have more connectivity than we know what to do with. People are just impatient, I guess.
What the fuck do RFID tags on books have to do with the PATRIOT Act, specifically? Is there some provision in the act that I missed that says, "Ashcroft and his cronies will make RFIDs available for all industries so we can track them damn liberals"?
RFID is a technology whose time has come, nothing more, nothing less. Take your anti-Ashcroft tinfoil hat off, it's a nice sunny day.
Sooooooo big budget = great movie?
Waterworld, anyone?
Am I rare or just stupid in that I love the BBC version...
Yay hollywood. Meh.
How about this: F.U.
Turning off your net connection is a perfectly valid solution. You don't NEED email, you WANT it. If spam is too nasty, just don't get any more. Find a new way to communicate with people. I hear telephones work pretty well.
Bouncing emails back is not impossible. Spamassassin doesn't bounce emails, but a similar solution could. Take spam labeled as such from spamassassin and send it back as if it bounced.
Crying "save us, Government" is just stupid.
Why not just rely on ISPs entirely? Publically flog ISPs that allow spammers, get existing ISPs to drop all connections to/from them.
What I want to know is, why aren't the ISPs doing something about this now? They're the ones with the bandwidth costs, aren't they??
Turn of your internet connection. Bounce all emails to spammed addresses (causes a little more bandwidth at first, but do you think spammers will continue to hammer addresses that bounce?).
There's two. And I'm not even trying.
Yes, because the war on drugs has reduced the average big-time drug cartel's revenue. I guess they're only able to afford 1 or 2 Ferraris for their chases with Crockett and Tubbs...
I don't think you'll be able to legislate spam out of existance. In fact, I know so. There are, let's just round it off, nearly 200 nations in the world.
:) when HTML made it into email...)
There is no way every one of them has laws (with teeth to stop it. And hey, look how well laws against murder work!!), and there's no way the U.S. diplomats are going to say, "No, we'll stop our billion dollar trade unless you stop your spammers."
Spam is so tiny a problem in comparison to what the trade diplomats are really working on... Compare spam to the steel industry, or agriculture, for example.
The onus IS on the users, to work on their ISP's to filter spam, and to filter it themselves, and to NOT CLICK ON THEM!!
(rue the day
Save us, government! After you protect us from spam, keep us from riding merry-go-rounds, put up fences to keep us away from dangerous natural sites (that Grand Canyon is too dangerous for people to walk near), and then shut down that vile fast food industry, they're just trying to make us all fat slobs! And keep wasting billions on the war on drugs, that's been going SOOOO well.
Government help should be limited to fraud, and that's about it. "Wasted bandwidth", give me a break, there are technological solutions.
I hate to say RTFA, but RTFA. They are planning 10% efficiency (as the other guy said), just making them REALLY GODDAMN CHEAP compared to current ones.
Yeah, you're right. Far better to complain that the President (!) isn't creating a job for you...
You are correct about Ann Coulter and I could say the same for Al Franken.
You are also correct that references would be "responsible" but you forget, this is /. :) That said, here's a particularly good summary.
Oh, BTW, just because something is "conventional" doesn't make it correct.
Maybe if a few more people would create their own damn jobs...
It shocks me that people like you believe jobs are just "there" and should be filled. Here's some information you should remember: For each job, there's someone out there who's taken a chance at creating it.
Why not try to become the guy who creates the jobs? Are you afraid to do so? There are dozens of SBA grants and assistance programs around. There are dozens of IDAs and other local government agencies to help out.
Instead of whining about it and blaming the Republicrats, why not get out there and start something of your own? Take the chance!
Reread your history. FDR's policies extended the great depression, didn't mitigate or end it quickly. A number of new historical economic analyses demonstrate it pretty clearly.
Good try though.
Well, fair enough: I suppose if religion wasn't around, leaders would find other reasons to have their citizens kill each other... I suppose it's a good argument for personal, internalized 'religion'.
/. :) My 'state of mind' comment was directed at religion in general, which turns me off. I'm pretty optimistic about the world in general.
Side note: agreed. I could start calling you names if you thought it'd feel more like
Alright, I'm no historical scholar, but let me ask some questions you might be able to answer (honest questions, not trying to be snide here):
;))
Did the templars and others who fought the Crusades long after they started fight for land and power? Or did they truly believe they were doing god's work?
Are Islamic militants in Israel/Palestine NOT fighting because they are Islamic militants? Occurs to me they blow themselves to bits entirely because of their religion.
And whatever the root cause is (power grab, etc), isn't the fact that religion is used to get the consent of the populace indicative of religion's power to drive people to war?
Obviously, if everyone followed the "love thy neighbor" crap, the world would be a different place... (and yeah, 'crap' is indicative of my general state of mind
That's a sweet idea. PPV, HBO, what the heck. I bet you could make well over the million you'd win for the prize...
Of course, it'd only be real successful for the first launch or two, then the sheen's off, you'd have to come up with something bigger:
Fear Factor X-Prize! Joe Rogan's up there with some hottie in a skimpy white wife-beater, I can see it now...
See, that's where philosophy starts to get all hazy and mind boggling. "a truth" is the entire point I was trying to make. Given any single issue, there can be more than one "truth" but there can be only one set of "facts".
;)).
If everyone understood the facts behind any issue, the resolution of that issue would be simple and obvious.
And I believe reason and logic are The Way (with the Scientific Method being the main tool to reach Nirvana
Well then :)
:)) /were/ about religion in the sense that they were brought about in the /name/ of religion. You think anyone would have been trying to conquer the "Holy Lands" if they didn't think they were "Holy"?
Okay, you're right, belief in "truth" causes all wars, I should not have bothered with the "religious" distinction.
But it wasn't unthinking. In answer to your question, which do I hate, wars or religion, I'd have to start with religion, because it causes more hatred and war than any other social interaction.
The Crusades and the Inquisition (which nobody expected, of course