If the technology exists for this to work perfectly, with no risk to privacy or performance, and all it did was prevented copyright infringement and access to illegal material, I wonder how many of us would still be against it regardless.
Would this still be classed as an "assault on the internet"? Or is this really an "assault on my access to pirated music/software/movies/porn/etc" at heart?
Has anyone considered that, if one man, by using nothing but his own fame and intellect, is able to bring about a regime change against what appears to be popuplar opinion, he, too, will have something like the power of a dictator?
I want to challenge the claim that a non-literal reading of a piece of text precludes any sort of non-relativism.
Suppose you were told by a friend,
"It's raining cats and dogs outside."
You could intepret this to mean that numerous felines and canines are falling from the sky, which would be literal but incorrect.
This, however, does not mean that the sentence is meaningless or that you are free to interpret it to mean whatever you wish it to mean, because of the existence of a correct intepretation.
The correct interpretation would be that it is raining heavily outside. This is the meaning the original speaker wished to convey. And I suggest that this is also the approach we should take when reading, whether you are reading a newspaper or a bible-- to understand the original meaning (which may be absolute or relative, but that is up to the writer, not the reader.)
I agree totally about the good script & acting. I have all the RvB eps on my work terminal, and I enjoy playing them with video out plugin set to null and just listen with my headphones (so the boss suspects nothing hahahaha). The visuals are just optional, really.
It does get suspicious when I just have a dumb grin on my face when I am just staring at a C program.
I'm dissatisfied with both the "logical proofs for God" and "leap of blind faith" positions. How about this alternative:
There exists facts which cannot be proved by logic propositions alone. For example, how do you prove, using logic, how many siblings I have? Because of your limitation (you don't know me personally), you need me to reveal this fact to you--that I have one sister.
May I suggest that the existence of God is one such fact--that is, you cannot prove it by logic due to our limitations. If God exists, the only way we can know for sure is if it was revealed to you.
Let's assume that we are talking about a being that is omnipotent. Naturally, this means if (he?) decides to hide himself from us limited beings, he will succeed, and the whole issue of his existence is a futile exercise. The only way we could know if he exists is if he chooses to reveal himself. So if we are concerned with God's existence, we should be looking for revelations from God to man rather than the logic of man to attain to God.
Therefore, I believe in our search for an answer to this question, we need to be testing the claims of revelations from God, rather than attempting to reach God with our limited intellects. For Islam, for example, could we verify the Prophet Muhammad's claims that he received words of God from the angel Gabriel? For Christianity, could we verify their claims that the Jesus of history was God become man? And so on. The answers lie in the facts of history, not in the head of some philosopher, and we would do well to give them careful examination before making a judgment.
Isn't the X-303 (the "warship") salvaged from the half-finished one the cloned goa'uld were building in the "Nightwalkers" episode? That would explain why it was so cheap to finish.
Cable install guy sits in front of my computer with his enumerated step-by-step instruction sheet; I boot up the computer.
It says: "LILO:"
"Ahh, a password protected computer," says the knowledgeable install guy.
"Um, no," I say, "I think I can set it up myself. Why don't you just leave the install CD with me?"
"We're supposed to follo..." (hesitates as he watches my debian box boot up) "...Ehh, okay," he concedes, then spends the next hour sitting in his van smoking.
Lucasarts could well be the instigator of this review. They leak some fake review, pretend to forcably remove it, allow "pirated" copies of the text to circulate around the 'net, hyping up their already overhyped movie.
I disagree. Maybe we need a new HTML rendering widget similar to <TEXTAREA> but it's just wrong to say that the widget is broken.
I need the <TEXTAREA> for many things, such as posting application forms, stuff that sends e-mails---most of the stuff is not in HTML. If you restricted it to HTML rendering then you've removed the flexibility of the widget.
when there is a web browser that is isn't brainsick...
It's not the fault of the browsers that they were implemented to specification. If they did in fact implement HTML rendering in the TEXTAREA widget or even if they added a HTMLAREA widget in a certain brwoser it would only cause webmasters more grief since it would be another thing which "Works in IE, doesn't in Netscape" or vice versa. If anything, blame the W3C for not coming up something that people need.
Sorry to be ignorant. If GPL won't co-exist with any other license, is it then illegal to use both GPLed and BSD licensed code in the same software?
This is exactly what I've done for an assignment at university, using openSSL (BSD), GNOME, MySQL (GPL), etc. (And managed to win a AUD$2500 prize for it) Is this bad?
This is silly. Round-robin scheduling implies pre-emption.
The way round-robin scheduling works is by setting an interrupt to occur after a certain time quantum to force the user process to relinquish control of the CPU back to the OS, which dispatches a different process.
I'm think Linux uses a much more complex version of this involving priority queues and stuff (I'm not an expert myself) but in a simple RR system the interrupt and relinquishing of CPU (without the process knowing) is also called "pre-emption". Or at least I think that was what I was taught in OS class.
java.io.IOException: Broken (exhaust) pipe.
java.lang.NullPointerException: Driver is lost.
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: Too many people in car.
java.lang.SecurityException: Car stolen.
java.lang.RuntimeException: Car crashed.
java.io.ObjectStreamException: Ducks crossing road.
java.net.NoRouteToHostException: Bridge broken.
I think the actual meaning of that e-mail is not that your selection of "no" is an error but rather that the standard defaults (which should have been all yes) were set to no for some reason when you filled out the form. Since most people get sucked into spam by ignorance of the option to disable it, they assumed that you should've been ignorant and gotten sucked into spam as well, except that they made a mistake with the defaults, and therefore are now correcting it.
It's either that or they're trying to make up a lame excuse to put everyone on their spam list...
All my desktop apps work including Photoshop (which is infinitely better than GIMP).
Photoshop might be infinitely better than the GIMP, but then I'd never find out, since it's also infinitely more expensive.
I suppose some parts of GIMP (why is there no line/rectangle tool??) could be improved but then it is getting improved constantly (1.2 is out!!) so I'm happy. It does most of what I need it for and more.
I've never used Photoshop so I can't comment, but if I can't apt-get install it for free then I can't afford (and don't want) it.
Slashdot Mirror
If the technology exists for this to work perfectly, with no risk to privacy or performance, and all it did was prevented copyright infringement and access to illegal material, I wonder how many of us would still be against it regardless.
Would this still be classed as an "assault on the internet"? Or is this really an "assault on my access to pirated music/software/movies/porn/etc" at heart?
There were keyboards in the 19th century??
Has anyone considered that, if one man, by using nothing but his own fame and intellect, is able to bring about a regime change against what appears to be popuplar opinion, he, too, will have something like the power of a dictator?
I want to challenge the claim that a non-literal reading of a piece of text precludes any sort of non-relativism.
Suppose you were told by a friend,
"It's raining cats and dogs outside."
You could intepret this to mean that numerous felines and canines are falling from the sky, which would be literal but incorrect.
This, however, does not mean that the sentence is meaningless or that you are free to interpret it to mean whatever you wish it to mean, because of the existence of a correct intepretation.
The correct interpretation would be that it is raining heavily outside. This is the meaning the original speaker wished to convey. And I suggest that this is also the approach we should take when reading, whether you are reading a newspaper or a bible-- to understand the original meaning (which may be absolute or relative, but that is up to the writer, not the reader.)
Carmaggedon, here we come!
ssh
vim
less
wget
links
crawl
bzip2
screen
mpg321
centericq
All I'll ever need for a console desktop.
I agree totally about the good script & acting. I have all the RvB eps on my work terminal, and I enjoy playing them with video out plugin set to null and just listen with my headphones (so the boss suspects nothing hahahaha). The visuals are just optional, really.
It does get suspicious when I just have a dumb grin on my face when I am just staring at a C program.
I'm dissatisfied with both the "logical proofs for God" and "leap of blind faith" positions. How about this alternative:
There exists facts which cannot be proved by logic propositions alone. For example, how do you prove, using logic, how many siblings I have? Because of your limitation (you don't know me personally), you need me to reveal this fact to you--that I have one sister.
May I suggest that the existence of God is one such fact--that is, you cannot prove it by logic due to our limitations. If God exists, the only way we can know for sure is if it was revealed to you.
Let's assume that we are talking about a being that is omnipotent. Naturally, this means if (he?) decides to hide himself from us limited beings, he will succeed, and the whole issue of his existence is a futile exercise. The only way we could know if he exists is if he chooses to reveal himself. So if we are concerned with God's existence, we should be looking for revelations from God to man rather than the logic of man to attain to God.
Therefore, I believe in our search for an answer to this question, we need to be testing the claims of revelations from God, rather than attempting to reach God with our limited intellects. For Islam, for example, could we verify the Prophet Muhammad's claims that he received words of God from the angel Gabriel? For Christianity, could we verify their claims that the Jesus of history was God become man? And so on. The answers lie in the facts of history, not in the head of some philosopher, and we would do well to give them careful examination before making a judgment.
Isn't the X-303 (the "warship") salvaged from the half-finished one the cloned goa'uld were building in the "Nightwalkers" episode? That would explain why it was so cheap to finish.
Cable install guy sits in front of my computer with his enumerated step-by-step instruction sheet; I boot up the computer.
It says: "LILO:"
"Ahh, a password protected computer," says the knowledgeable install guy.
"Um, no," I say, "I think I can set it up myself. Why don't you just leave the install CD with me?"
"We're supposed to follo..." (hesitates as he watches my debian box boot up) "...Ehh, okay," he concedes, then spends the next hour sitting in his van smoking.
Here is another really good one:
Gateworld
Requires IE5.
He put that in to discourage all 'em linux slashdotters from slashdotting it.
Lucasarts could well be the instigator of this review. They leak some fake review, pretend to forcably remove it, allow "pirated" copies of the text to circulate around the 'net, hyping up their already overhyped movie.
How's that for cheap marketing?
Technically outer space is defined as the space outside the solar system...
I need the <TEXTAREA> for many things, such as posting application forms, stuff that sends e-mails---most of the stuff is not in HTML. If you restricted it to HTML rendering then you've removed the flexibility of the widget.
when there is a web browser that is isn't brainsick...
It's not the fault of the browsers that they were implemented to specification. If they did in fact implement HTML rendering in the TEXTAREA widget or even if they added a HTMLAREA widget in a certain brwoser it would only cause webmasters more grief since it would be another thing which "Works in IE, doesn't in Netscape" or vice versa. If anything, blame the W3C for not coming up something that people need.
This is exactly what I've done for an assignment at university, using openSSL (BSD), GNOME, MySQL (GPL), etc. (And managed to win a AUD$2500 prize for it) Is this bad?
This is silly. Round-robin scheduling implies pre-emption.
The way round-robin scheduling works is by setting an interrupt to occur after a certain time quantum to force the user process to relinquish control of the CPU back to the OS, which dispatches a different process.
I'm think Linux uses a much more complex version of this involving priority queues and stuff (I'm not an expert myself) but in a simple RR system the interrupt and relinquishing of CPU (without the process knowing) is also called "pre-emption". Or at least I think that was what I was taught in OS class.
How could you do round-robin without pre-emption?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
java.io.IOException: Broken (exhaust) pipe.
java.lang.NullPointerException: Driver is lost.
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: Too many people in car.
java.lang.SecurityException: Car stolen.
java.lang.RuntimeException: Car crashed.
java.io.ObjectStreamException: Ducks crossing road.
java.net.NoRouteToHostException: Bridge broken.
I think the actual meaning of that e-mail is not that your selection of "no" is an error but rather that the standard defaults (which should have been all yes) were set to no for some reason when you filled out the form. Since most people get sucked into spam by ignorance of the option to disable it, they assumed that you should've been ignorant and gotten sucked into spam as well, except that they made a mistake with the defaults, and therefore are now correcting it. It's either that or they're trying to make up a lame excuse to put everyone on their spam list...
Photoshop might be infinitely better than the GIMP, but then I'd never find out, since it's also infinitely more expensive.
I suppose some parts of GIMP (why is there no line/rectangle tool??) could be improved but then it is getting improved constantly (1.2 is out!!) so I'm happy. It does most of what I need it for and more.
I've never used Photoshop so I can't comment, but if I can't apt-get install it for free then I can't afford (and don't want) it.
Mmmm... yes... perfect route for a mass Russian invasion into Canada...
Sounds like communism. Good in theory...