Email is not private. Let me repeat that: email is not private. Anyone who believes that an email is private is an idiot. Emails are the equivalent of messages written on a postcard.
Morevoer, just as with real letters, anything one writes can be shown to someone else by the recipient. There is no difference between someone choosing to use a (privacy-deprived) Gmail and someone hiring a servant to read his letters to him.
There is no such thing as confidential communication.
Or try Colorado. Prices can be quite nasty, esp. around Denver, but we're slightly less bone-dry than New Mexico, and we've excellent beer, more people (and hence more things like operas, theatres, live music and so on). The beer, for one, is amazing. There are three top beer states: Washington & Oregon compete for slots 1 & 2; Colorado is always third.
On second thought, every new person drives up housing prices--stay home:-)
Shouldn't it be the user's choice to sell some of his privacy in return for getting that 1GB of free space? Privacy is just another good--to prevent a man from selling his privacy is just as bad as to prevent him from selling his labour.
Frasier was for 35+? Gosh, we must have been weird in college--we watched it religiously when we were 20. Frasier, Buffy and Simpsons: the staples of fin de siecle college TV.
I'm more specifically referring to a debugger which will, when stepping through the code, be able to display and debug modules written in several different languages.
Yes, it is a threat. Bring it into the US, and set it off in the New York subway, or the DC Metro, or whatever, and those three quarts or so of sarin could kill quite a few people.
No, it's not continent-destroying, but to my knowledge we never claimed that Hussein was capable of destroying continents or even states--just that he had chemical weapons he was not supposed to have. Which he did.
Yes, wars are ugly, violent, deadly things. Yes, they cause orphans and widows; they destroy private property and wreak havoc upon economies.
The question is whether or not a war is worth the cost. Was it worth our dead, the Iraqi dead, the damage caused to families on both side and the damage wrought upon Iraq herself? I tend to think yes.
And FWIW, I weigh less than half of 350 lbs, I don't eat Cheetos and I avoid sweating wherever possible. FfurtherWIW, I have family in the military--avoiding foreign adventures is an important concern of mine.
Where are these weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the United States?
Did you not see the news item about the artillery shell with 3-4 quarts of sarin (IIRC) in it which was found last week?
Iraq also harboured men like Zarqawi, the terrorist who likely beheaded Nick Berg a few weeks ago. It was a dangerous state; we were at war with it (the first Gulf War never ended); we were authorised to invade and so we did. No big deal, really.
I do hope that you're being facetious. TCP ports are not physical entities which must be paid for; they aren't even really logical entities. A packet (actually, IP is packets; I think TCP is frames or datagrams or something) simply has a header field which notes the port it's for: it could be 25, or 80 (HTTP) or 14,062.
If you are being facetious, you're quite right. The companies will always make one pay, on a recurring basis, for things which should at most be covered by a setup fee (it takes a tech all of 30 seconds to remove the block, and thereafter takes no maintenance at all).
Why should we 'devote more resources' to the space program? It's a complete waste of money. The return on investment is essentially nil. Yes, some advances (e.g. Tang) have come about, but those could have been developed far more cheaply.
The space program is a boondoggle. It's simply far too expensive to go into space right now; we don't have the technology; we don't have the precursor to the technology; we don't have the precursor to the precursor to the precursor to the technology. It's far too expensive to live in space; once again, we aren't even close to being able to do this reasonably well.
Three-quarters of the globe is covered in water. The undersea environment is cheap to get to, and is in several respects similar to the space environment (hostile outdoors; need to live in sealed containers). The sea is also full of life and food. If we don't live in the cheap, life-supporting ocean, why should we be living in the astronomically expensive, life-threatening reaches of space?
I'm a big fan of science fiction; I'd love to go up in space and visit the stars, or even other planets, or even just the moon. But it's not going to happen in my lifetime, or in the lifetime of anyone who even remembers my name. The massive amounts of money we are spending now could be better invested here on earth, on fundamental scientific work which will, in several centuries, determine if space can even be made to work.
To tell the truth, I'm pessimistic. Space is far too big, and far too hostile, and our requirements are far too complex. If artificial gravity is doable; if we can figure out how to cheaply cool things in a vacuum (venting gases is not a long-term solution); if we can develop non-chemical propulsion systems (artificial grav might help here)--then maybe space can be made to work. But even then, what's the point? Without terraforming, Luna and Mars are more hostile than the oceans, and even with the aforementioned advances far more expensive to reach.
Any argument for space can be applied to the ocean--and yet we don't spend much time on the sea floor, because it doesn't make sense. Space is far more expensive than the ocean; how much less sense does it make to spend so much time there?
The only real use of space is communications, astronomical observations and ortillery.
So, is any free software project working on this sort of thing? Given that Unix docs tend to be plain text, this kind of approach should work better here than with all those nasty proprietary binary formats. Reading the description, it doesn't sound that difficult to do, although I've not enough maths background to no for certain.
Sometimes, sometimes not. When there's a labour shortage, employers have the short end of the stick. Remember back in the late 90s, when we were getting mondo extras for free? Part of that was too much money floating around; part of it was competition between employers for labour. At the moment, it's the around way 'round: labour is competing for employment.
No-one complains when we're the ones with the advantage; we only complain when we're not--never mind that these things are cyclical, and will evenutally turn around.
Well, it goes to the heart of why one be doing two-up printing in the first place. There are two scenarios: one just wants to fit more data on the page (and doesn't mind squinting); or one is printing a book (each page of a book is generally a mere segment of a larger page--1/2, 1/4, 1/8 & 1/16th are usual).
In the first case, it really doesn't matter. A little extra space helps give some visual definition, which is nice (ever read one of those old two-column encyclopaedias where there's hardly any space between the columns?) but not necessary.
In the second case, though, part of the printed two-page (or four-page, or...) will become part of the binding (and in the case of page sets four or more, part of the slop which is sliced off), and thus not part of the visible page at all. In order to preserve the positioning of the margins &c., it becomes necessary to insert additional space.
Unfortunately, due to/.'s idiotic restriction on pre tags, I cannot demonstrate this, but imagine that a two-page set looks kinda like ----v----; the 'v' would actually drop down below the pages, and be caught up in the stitching/glue/&c.
Happily, the American standard conveniently inserts that extra space (the 'v' above). Yet another example of the standard system failing in theory yet being quite clever in practise, and the French system being clever in theory but dumb in practise.
Now, if the French were smart, that's what they'd have done. Base-12 is so far superior to base-10 that it's not even funny. Common fractions like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 & 1/6 are all non-repeating, unlike in decimal where only some are. Twelve has a lot of interesting numeric properties--which is why it's so common in older measurement systems, and why many languages have words for the numbers 11 and 12, and why there are numbers like 'gross' (a dozen dozen--144) or 'great gross' (a dozen gross--1,728).
Unfortunately, the French revolutionaries settled on a much less satisfactory solution. I do think that for consistency fans of French units should advocate the Revolutionary calendar and day.
If you're printing 2-up, then you'll want to add additional space in between the two pages--the metric style won't allow for this, so you'll need to do some funky scaling and will end up with more whitespace than you wanted. Our system, being practical, does the better job.
Exactly. The last time men tried to defend their homes, families and land against the Federal government in a bid to secure their liberty, we made quite a dent (killed 300,000+ of 'em), but we lost in the end, and that loss led to a century of oppression and a more powerful federal government. It just doesn't work, sadly.
And back then it was almost practical. Nowadays, with a modern Navy and Army, both of which are free of local ties, it's just about impossible.
Not that it's any reason not to arm oneself anyway: that one might lose is no reason to give up.
Or imagine a "suicide gigalo", much like a suicide bomber.
They already exist, only in reverse. Do a search for 'bareback parties' and prepare to be sickened. It's not conservatives who will be the death of homosexuals; it's homosexuals who will do themselves in. Why anyone would deliberately infect himself with HIV is beyond me.
But you can actually structure your essays better when you can first type out ideas and chunks of sentences, and then restructure until they form a coherent, logical progression.
The facts don't bear that out: the end result of computer-editing tends to be rather scattershot. I would argue that this is because coherent arguments start as fully-formed thoughts (in the short term; in the longer term obviously they develop, as one learns). The sad fact of the matter is that most folks don't seem to think well, and computers just give them an easy out.
Writing drafts by hand forces one to think--it's slow, and painful and spends money (paper's not free). Typing, by contrast, is easy and cheap. There's no incentive to think before jotting down whatever comes to mind. Much of my/. output is proof of this:-)
Back in college, I finally figured out how to write good papers: I went down to the local pub with a briefcase full of books and paper, spread it all out and started. First I read the books; then I wrote an outline; then I fleshed it out, then I wrote the paper a few times, then I went home an typed the whole thing up in LaTeX, printed it out, proofed it one last time & turned it in. Much beer was drunk and much tobacco sacrificed in my pipe throughout the process... Anyway, I ended up with straight As that year, compared to low Bs, a few Cs and some As.
Also excellent on the subject of education in general is Richard Mitchell, the Underground Grammarian. He wrote brilliantly about the general fuddle-mindedness of modern education--which ties into much of what Cliff Stoll wrote in his books.
I'm going to have to check out this Flickering Mind.
The convenient fractions of the foot, the yard, the cup, the gallon, the pound &c. are all units or integer multiples thereof.
So are the convenient and commonly used values in the metric system.
Incidentally, your appeal to faux patriotism (by continually calling it the "French system") and attempts to make it appear overly complex by using unit representations that are simply nonexistant in typical use ("decimetres", measuring half a metre in millimetres) just makes you look childish.
First, I refer to it as the 'French' system because 'metric' simply means 'measuring'--and the standard system is just as good (I'd argue better) at measurement. Calling French units 'metric' assumes that they are the way to measure. Likewise, 'SI' is a misnomer because the standard system is also an international system. I've called French units by their proper name since before the recent anti-French sentiment. I'll admit, though, that my general disdain for the French Revolution in particular and the Englightenment in general colours my opinion of the system they produced.
And measuring half a metre in millimetres is exactly the sort of idiot thing that proponents of the metric system are always blathering on about. My whole point is that it's silly to go on about being able to convert millimetres to metres by sliding a decimal point, and that other considerations are key.
Slashdot Mirror
Morevoer, just as with real letters, anything one writes can be shown to someone else by the recipient. There is no difference between someone choosing to use a (privacy-deprived) Gmail and someone hiring a servant to read his letters to him.
There is no such thing as confidential communication.
On second thought, every new person drives up housing prices--stay home:-)
Shouldn't it be the user's choice to sell some of his privacy in return for getting that 1GB of free space? Privacy is just another good--to prevent a man from selling his privacy is just as bad as to prevent him from selling his labour.
That could be because rock operas suck. The Wall is only good because it's good music--as a dramatic work it is utterly silly.
The sauce is also pronounced 'wooster.'
Frasier was for 35+? Gosh, we must have been weird in college--we watched it religiously when we were 20. Frasier, Buffy and Simpsons: the staples of fin de siecle college TV.
gdb does this...
No, it's not continent-destroying, but to my knowledge we never claimed that Hussein was capable of destroying continents or even states--just that he had chemical weapons he was not supposed to have. Which he did.
The question is whether or not a war is worth the cost. Was it worth our dead, the Iraqi dead, the damage caused to families on both side and the damage wrought upon Iraq herself? I tend to think yes.
And FWIW, I weigh less than half of 350 lbs, I don't eat Cheetos and I avoid sweating wherever possible. FfurtherWIW, I have family in the military--avoiding foreign adventures is an important concern of mine.
Did you not see the news item about the artillery shell with 3-4 quarts of sarin (IIRC) in it which was found last week?
Iraq also harboured men like Zarqawi, the terrorist who likely beheaded Nick Berg a few weeks ago. It was a dangerous state; we were at war with it (the first Gulf War never ended); we were authorised to invade and so we did. No big deal, really.
If you are being facetious, you're quite right. The companies will always make one pay, on a recurring basis, for things which should at most be covered by a setup fee (it takes a tech all of 30 seconds to remove the block, and thereafter takes no maintenance at all).
The space program is a boondoggle. It's simply far too expensive to go into space right now; we don't have the technology; we don't have the precursor to the technology; we don't have the precursor to the precursor to the precursor to the technology. It's far too expensive to live in space; once again, we aren't even close to being able to do this reasonably well.
Three-quarters of the globe is covered in water. The undersea environment is cheap to get to, and is in several respects similar to the space environment (hostile outdoors; need to live in sealed containers). The sea is also full of life and food. If we don't live in the cheap, life-supporting ocean, why should we be living in the astronomically expensive, life-threatening reaches of space?
I'm a big fan of science fiction; I'd love to go up in space and visit the stars, or even other planets, or even just the moon. But it's not going to happen in my lifetime, or in the lifetime of anyone who even remembers my name. The massive amounts of money we are spending now could be better invested here on earth, on fundamental scientific work which will, in several centuries, determine if space can even be made to work.
To tell the truth, I'm pessimistic. Space is far too big, and far too hostile, and our requirements are far too complex. If artificial gravity is doable; if we can figure out how to cheaply cool things in a vacuum (venting gases is not a long-term solution); if we can develop non-chemical propulsion systems (artificial grav might help here)--then maybe space can be made to work. But even then, what's the point? Without terraforming, Luna and Mars are more hostile than the oceans, and even with the aforementioned advances far more expensive to reach.
Any argument for space can be applied to the ocean--and yet we don't spend much time on the sea floor, because it doesn't make sense. Space is far more expensive than the ocean; how much less sense does it make to spend so much time there?
The only real use of space is communications, astronomical observations and ortillery.
So, is any free software project working on this sort of thing? Given that Unix docs tend to be plain text, this kind of approach should work better here than with all those nasty proprietary binary formats. Reading the description, it doesn't sound that difficult to do, although I've not enough maths background to no for certain.
No-one complains when we're the ones with the advantage; we only complain when we're not--never mind that these things are cyclical, and will evenutally turn around.
Why doesn't anyone ever worry about laws protecting employers from the greed of employees?
The best is the original anti-419 Lovecraftian binge. At least, I believe it was the first. Horribly funny, though:-)
In the first case, it really doesn't matter. A little extra space helps give some visual definition, which is nice (ever read one of those old two-column encyclopaedias where there's hardly any space between the columns?) but not necessary.
In the second case, though, part of the printed two-page (or four-page, or...) will become part of the binding (and in the case of page sets four or more, part of the slop which is sliced off), and thus not part of the visible page at all. In order to preserve the positioning of the margins &c., it becomes necessary to insert additional space.
Unfortunately, due to /.'s idiotic restriction on pre tags, I cannot demonstrate this, but imagine that a two-page set looks kinda like ----v----; the 'v' would actually drop down below the pages, and be caught up in the stitching/glue/&c.
Happily, the American standard conveniently inserts that extra space (the 'v' above). Yet another example of the standard system failing in theory yet being quite clever in practise, and the French system being clever in theory but dumb in practise.
Now, if the French were smart, that's what they'd have done. Base-12 is so far superior to base-10 that it's not even funny. Common fractions like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 & 1/6 are all non-repeating, unlike in decimal where only some are. Twelve has a lot of interesting numeric properties--which is why it's so common in older measurement systems, and why many languages have words for the numbers 11 and 12, and why there are numbers like 'gross' (a dozen dozen--144) or 'great gross' (a dozen gross--1,728).
Unfortunately, the French revolutionaries settled on a much less satisfactory solution. I do think that for consistency fans of French units should advocate the Revolutionary calendar and day.
Ummm, if you can't do 6x12 + 8 = 72 + 8 = 80 in your head, then there's a major problem, and it's not with feet and inches...
If you're printing 2-up, then you'll want to add additional space in between the two pages--the metric style won't allow for this, so you'll need to do some funky scaling and will end up with more whitespace than you wanted. Our system, being practical, does the better job.
And back then it was almost practical. Nowadays, with a modern Navy and Army, both of which are free of local ties, it's just about impossible.
Not that it's any reason not to arm oneself anyway: that one might lose is no reason to give up.
They already exist, only in reverse. Do a search for 'bareback parties' and prepare to be sickened. It's not conservatives who will be the death of homosexuals; it's homosexuals who will do themselves in. Why anyone would deliberately infect himself with HIV is beyond me.
The facts don't bear that out: the end result of computer-editing tends to be rather scattershot. I would argue that this is because coherent arguments start as fully-formed thoughts (in the short term; in the longer term obviously they develop, as one learns). The sad fact of the matter is that most folks don't seem to think well, and computers just give them an easy out.
Writing drafts by hand forces one to think--it's slow, and painful and spends money (paper's not free). Typing, by contrast, is easy and cheap. There's no incentive to think before jotting down whatever comes to mind. Much of my /. output is proof of this:-)
Back in college, I finally figured out how to write good papers: I went down to the local pub with a briefcase full of books and paper, spread it all out and started. First I read the books; then I wrote an outline; then I fleshed it out, then I wrote the paper a few times, then I went home an typed the whole thing up in LaTeX, printed it out, proofed it one last time & turned it in. Much beer was drunk and much tobacco sacrificed in my pipe throughout the process... Anyway, I ended up with straight As that year, compared to low Bs, a few Cs and some As.
I'm going to have to check out this Flickering Mind.
So are the convenient and commonly used values in the metric system.
Incidentally, your appeal to faux patriotism (by continually calling it the "French system") and attempts to make it appear overly complex by using unit representations that are simply nonexistant in typical use ("decimetres", measuring half a metre in millimetres) just makes you look childish.
First, I refer to it as the 'French' system because 'metric' simply means 'measuring'--and the standard system is just as good (I'd argue better) at measurement. Calling French units 'metric' assumes that they are the way to measure. Likewise, 'SI' is a misnomer because the standard system is also an international system. I've called French units by their proper name since before the recent anti-French sentiment. I'll admit, though, that my general disdain for the French Revolution in particular and the Englightenment in general colours my opinion of the system they produced.
And measuring half a metre in millimetres is exactly the sort of idiot thing that proponents of the metric system are always blathering on about. My whole point is that it's silly to go on about being able to convert millimetres to metres by sliding a decimal point, and that other considerations are key.