If you think that's evil, we clearly have different systems of morality.
Democrats let 1,000,000 Rwandans die.
If you think that's good, we clearly have different systems of morality.
My point isn't that the opposite of what you say it true; Republicans have certainly had their share of fuckups.
My point is that neither side has a monopoly on being good or being evil.
Thought excerise: If you're a corrupt politican, which party are you going to align with? Answer: whichever one is more expedient to your purposes. People are corrupt, not parties.
And if you're saying "no, no, the other party doesn't agree with me on ____", you should find out why. If you can't find a reason why someone disagrees with you, save they're evil, you really need to open your mind.
I can write you a scalable, reliable website using MS-Access. It will be slower and require a lot more code, but it will scale and remain up.
Is that true? I ask not to be snarky, but because of my ignorance of Access. To scale past one machine, it would have to have replication, which I thought was the point at which MS wanted you to move to SQL Server?
That may seem like a good idea, but look at what happens when people vote for offices they don't care about: they tend to do things like vote for the first person listed. In fact, in the 1986 Illinois primaries, a neo-nazi group managed to secure the Democratic nomination for Lt. Gov. by simply running a candidate whose last name started with "A".
Not to be a grammar nazi & all, but isn't the title redundant?
-Bill (j/k)
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
Most independant wi-fi points, block none http traffic. No ssh,ftp, IM,torrents, etc.
I haven't found that to be true. I've jumped on a half-dozen random independant wi-fi points through-out the US (LAS airport, T-Mobile's network, SBC's, various small coffee shops, libraries, hotels, etc.) and have *never* run into either SSH or Yahoo IM being blocked.
Where are you trying from? Sounds oddly restrictive.
A constructionist interprets the law as it is written, whereas an originalist interprets the law as the original authors intended. While in many cases they will reach the same conclusion, that's far from a given.
The example on wikipedia helps illuminate the difference:
Suppose that the Constitution contained (which it obviously does not) a provision that a person may not be "subjected to the punishments of hanging by the neck, beheading, stoning, pressing, or execution by firing squad". A Strict Constructionist would likely interpret that clause to mean that the specific punishments mentioned above were unconstitutional, but that other forms of capital punishment were not.
However, because "originalists can reach different results in the same case" (see What Originalism is Not -- Originalism is not always an answer in and of itself), one originalist would look at the context in which the clause was written, and might discover that the punishments listed in the clause were the only forms of capital punishment in use at that time, and the only forms of capital punishment that had ever been used at the time of ratification. Faced with the same problem, this originalist might therefore conclude that capital punishment in general -- including those methods for it invented since ratification, such as the electric chair -- was unconstitutional.
Another originalist may look at the text and see that the writers created a list. He would assume that the Congress intended this to be an exhaustive list of objectionable executions. Otherwise, they would have banned capital punishment as a whole, instead of listing specific means of punishment. He would rule that other forms of execution are constitutional. This is why many originalists can come to completely different conclusions.
This is an ad, intended to drive site traffic. Not to say Hemos understood it to be as such, but it definitely is. (If you look at the "About us" on the feed page, you'll see that they also own "NotePage", the the site listed as the submitter's homepage.)
It's not so bad that this story was approved as an ad, but rather it's so poorly written and poorly understood by the author. After announcing support for RSS, MS's Longhorn team bent over backwards to explain that they were supporting Atom too. The rest of it really is a long winded way to say that part of Google started using RSS in addition to Atom (not instead of!). In fact, I've no idea what point he's even making with Blogger, as they continue to use Atom!
Give the utter crap of this post, the only thing that surprised me was that it was posted by timothy!
Right, as I said, it's not a panacea but it's a step forward.
I'm not sure I agree with the moral equivalence between pornographers and terrorists. A lot of XXX sites do take steps to keep kids away (as any Fark reader should know;-). This makes it trivial for for a legit porn-peddler to keep kiddies away.
While it won't be easier to catch *every* porn site, it'll be easier parental filters to simply block all of.xxx. Again, not a pancea but an improvement.
Oh come on, this is way overboard. MBAs types aren't popular here, but that doesn't mean they should be needless flogged. All these folks did was visit a "secret" URL. That's it. That's the "hack."
Any geek here know's that's not secure. The URL was probably last year's. Figuring that is a hack? Visiting a URL is a hack? Come on!
Imagine when you applied to college if you check the status via the web. And in the query string you happened to notice "displayAdmittanceStatus=0"... you wouldn't be the *tiniest* bit tempted to set that value to 1?
These people aren't being banned for hacking. They're being banned because Harvard IT's was embarassed. Because Harvard was embarassed.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans brought an end to slavery in America.
If you think that's evil, we clearly have different systems of morality.
Democrats let 1,000,000 Rwandans die.
If you think that's good, we clearly have different systems of morality.
My point isn't that the opposite of what you say it true; Republicans have certainly had their share of fuckups.
My point is that neither side has a monopoly on being good or being evil.
Thought excerise: If you're a corrupt politican, which party are you going to align with? Answer: whichever one is more expedient to your purposes. People are corrupt, not parties.
And if you're saying "no, no, the other party doesn't agree with me on ____", you should find out why. If you can't find a reason why someone disagrees with you, save they're evil, you really need to open your mind.
My two cents,
-Bill
I can write you a scalable, reliable website using MS-Access. It will be slower and require a lot more code, but it will scale and remain up.
Is that true? I ask not to be snarky, but because of my ignorance of Access. To scale past one machine, it would have to have replication, which I thought was the point at which MS wanted you to move to SQL Server?
-Bill
That may seem like a good idea, but look at what happens when people vote for offices they don't care about: they tend to do things like vote for the first person listed. In fact, in the 1986 Illinois primaries, a neo-nazi group managed to secure the Democratic nomination for Lt. Gov. by simply running a candidate whose last name started with "A".
Not to be a grammar nazi & all, but isn't the title redundant?
-Bill
(j/k)
Most independant wi-fi points, block none http traffic. No ssh,ftp, IM,torrents, etc.
I haven't found that to be true. I've jumped on a half-dozen random independant wi-fi points through-out the US (LAS airport, T-Mobile's network, SBC's, various small coffee shops, libraries, hotels, etc.) and have *never* run into either SSH or Yahoo IM being blocked.
Where are you trying from? Sounds oddly restrictive.
-Bill
Maybe I'm remember it wrong, but last year wasn't posting dupes one of the jokes?
-Bill
Oh well... I suspose a crappy use of stylesheets is better than posting dupes all day long.
-Bill
Java is the new Visual Basic.
Damn, +2 Funny.
Me too! I'm up to 4 and it hasn't cra
It's a beta.
-Bill
A constructionist interprets the law as it is written, whereas an originalist interprets the law as the original authors intended. While in many cases they will reach the same conclusion, that's far from a given.
The example on wikipedia helps illuminate the difference:
-Bill
Huh, so is that where the downloads for Linux & OS X will be?
-Bill
This is an ad, intended to drive site traffic. Not to say Hemos understood it to be as such, but it definitely is. (If you look at the "About us" on the feed page, you'll see that they also own "NotePage", the the site listed as the submitter's homepage.)
It's not so bad that this story was approved as an ad, but rather it's so poorly written and poorly understood by the author. After announcing support for RSS, MS's Longhorn team bent over backwards to explain that they were supporting Atom too. The rest of it really is a long winded way to say that part of Google started using RSS in addition to Atom (not instead of!). In fact, I've no idea what point he's even making with Blogger, as they continue to use Atom!
Give the utter crap of this post, the only thing that surprised me was that it was posted by timothy!
-Bill
me too!!!!
I thought that was why he kept Robin around?
-Bill
Right, as I said, it's not a panacea but it's a step forward.
;-). This makes it trivial for for a legit porn-peddler to keep kiddies away.
I'm not sure I agree with the moral equivalence between pornographers and terrorists. A lot of XXX sites do take steps to keep kids away (as any Fark reader should know
-Bill
While it won't be easier to catch *every* porn site, it'll be easier parental filters to simply block all of .xxx. Again, not a pancea but an improvement.
-Bill
Well, aside from having the freaking Google Logo & search box take up half the page!
-Bill
For once, it's not timothy's fault -- his Google Accelerator must have pre-fetched the moderator's "approve" button!
-Bill
Uh, doesn't that throw all of REST out the window?
-Bill
Isn't it as simple as:
Chapter 1:
Use Perl
Index
Perl, 1
-Bill
The next timothy?
*duck!*
-Bill
Hmmm... I wonder if this means they can't go to Harvard either?
-Bill
Oh come on, this is way overboard. MBAs types aren't popular here, but that doesn't mean they should be needless flogged. All these folks did was visit a "secret" URL. That's it. That's the "hack."
Any geek here know's that's not secure. The URL was probably last year's. Figuring that is a hack? Visiting a URL is a hack? Come on!
Imagine when you applied to college if you check the status via the web. And in the query string you happened to notice "displayAdmittanceStatus=0"... you wouldn't be the *tiniest* bit tempted to set that value to 1?
These people aren't being banned for hacking. They're being banned because Harvard IT's was embarassed. Because Harvard was embarassed.
Embarassed? They should be ashamed.
-Bill