It's my understanding that it was a SIGINT project, and designed to spy on "them" and not "us." I would presume that it would be one of the tools available to any agency that had FISA approval.
One program is Echelon, and the people who've tired to report on it and call attention to it are generally considered nut-jobs and conspiracy theorists (I'm not sure why, stories on it are always confirmed by credible sources, and the program was never strictly denied by the feds). Echelon used to be a conspiracy theory, but the UK admitted to it. It actually turned out to be a larger project than the "nutjobs" has assumed. It was a joint effort between five countries and monitored any global communications that passed through them. Even Popular Science got a tour after that.
Although I have more than a hunch that this is a copy-and-paste ordeal, I sincerely agree. I have two quips, though: The first of these examples is awkward at worst, and the second is simply idiomatic.
Don't make the same mistake twice seems to indicate three mistakes, doesn't it? First you make the mistake. Then you make the same mistake. Then you make the same mistake twice. If you simply say, "Don't make the same mistake, " you'll avoid the first mistake.
As of yet is simply stupid. As yet, I've seen no progress on this one, but of course I'm speaking as of now.
Although it would start at the surface, the black hole, being infinitely dense and infinitesimally small, would likely burrow slowly to the center of the planet and fall into a shallow orbit.
that's a flawed assumption on your part. More that it's the bizarre way that/. nests comments and replies; it appeared to me that you were responding to somebody else entirely. Sorry, AC.
To back you up, the court's ruling was essentially that this crossed the line and can not really be considered art inspired by the car. They were so meticulous that the models are more like a technical description of the car, and is not subject to copyright; it's data, not a creative work.
Had they been less precise, this would not be the case.
Don't forget that two of the members of the Senate are running for president this November. Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch. Parent:
Nah, they'll be too busy campaigning to show up to vote. You:
This is a vote in the House of Representatives. Obama and McCain are members of the Senate Reading is for winners.
Look, you're not even trying. We have a certain expectation of our trolls, that they should be clever and subtle. Go seed a few flamewars on craigslist and then come back for a fresh start.
I kept getting mass forwards from a friend of mine; I responded to all the recipients admonishing him, and included quotes from two of his blog posts: the first of which was complaining about people who mass-forward emails, and the second was about people who don't use BCC.
Not that I agree with the parent, but it would only be ad hominem if he said that someone was wrong because they are a "platitude-dealing pollyanna," but not if said that they are wrong and they are a "platitude-dealing pollyanna." The latter, at worst, is poisoning the well.
Slashdot Mirror
Won't somebody please think of the parents?
It's my understanding that it was a SIGINT project, and designed to spy on "them" and not "us." I would presume that it would be one of the tools available to any agency that had FISA approval.
Be that as it may, this is an appropriate place for the kernel developers to focus their attention.
Although I have more than a hunch that this is a copy-and-paste ordeal, I sincerely agree. I have two quips, though: The first of these examples is awkward at worst, and the second is simply idiomatic.
Don't make the same mistake twice seems to indicate three mistakes, doesn't it? First you make the mistake. Then you make the same mistake. Then you make the same mistake twice. If you simply say, "Don't make the same mistake, " you'll avoid the first mistake.
As of yet is simply stupid. As yet, I've seen no progress on this one, but of course I'm speaking as of now.
Although it would start at the surface, the black hole, being infinitely dense and infinitesimally small, would likely burrow slowly to the center of the planet and fall into a shallow orbit.
Even still, they don't precisely emit Hawking Radiation either, but rather that its origin is just beyond the event horizon.
I understand this; I find it oddly difficult to focus without something to also ignore.
Give him a break, he's 314!
To back you up, the court's ruling was essentially that this crossed the line and can not really be considered art inspired by the car. They were so meticulous that the models are more like a technical description of the car, and is not subject to copyright; it's data, not a creative work.
Had they been less precise, this would not be the case.
I already have instructions on how to access my archives, what is available to whom, and what to destroy as part of my will.
Uh-oh, he mentioned Usenet on /.! Now computer geeks will know our secret!
I'm continually surprised and pleased to see how well my representative stands up for justice and liberty, even if it is a Sisyphean task.
Grandparent:
Don't forget that two of the members of the Senate are running for president this November. Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch. Parent: Nah, they'll be too busy campaigning to show up to vote. You: This is a vote in the House of Representatives. Obama and McCain are members of the Senate Reading is for winners.Look, you're not even trying. We have a certain expectation of our trolls, that they should be clever and subtle. Go seed a few flamewars on craigslist and then come back for a fresh start.
When did we vote? Was I asleep?
Don't fall for Brand X's claims, only buy Tripmaster Monkey Brand K'Breel speeches!
I'm left wondering, though, how many people assumed that was spam :)
That's exactly why I'm an agnostic.
I kept getting mass forwards from a friend of mine; I responded to all the recipients admonishing him, and included quotes from two of his blog posts: the first of which was complaining about people who mass-forward emails, and the second was about people who don't use BCC.
He hasn't sent another since.
Prepare to feel the wrath of the AP for your 107 word quote.
Not that I agree with the parent, but it would only be ad hominem if he said that someone was wrong because they are a "platitude-dealing pollyanna," but not if said that they are wrong and they are a "platitude-dealing pollyanna." The latter, at worst, is poisoning the well.