I know several people who paint simply because they enjoy to paint. They don't paint for money or for praise or to make cheap presents. There is no poignant statement or message, just simply because they enjoy creating the act of painting.
*sigh* And if a tree falls in the forest, then it doesn't make any sound, right?
Their paintings are an expression of something inside them, which is a message. Whether anyone else ever sees that message is irrelevant - it's still there.
Most architecture has a definite purpose (holding up a roof; not exactly right, but I'm sure you get my meaning)
Most writing has a definite purpose, too (telling a story) - does that mean it's not art either?
they may well be beautiful and conjure up all sorts of emotions in people, but they are not art.
Funny, because that's pretty much what art is.
"Art", as an expression is supposed to invoke a reaction in it's audience. If an object inspires emotion in you (either good or bad), then it's probably art - especially if the person who designed it did so precisely to inspire you.
Methinks you have too narrow a definition of "art".
I looked into starting my own business a few years ago - I called city hall and asked about a business license.
They told me everything I needed to know (basically, $65 for a business license - I could run it out of my house, but only if there were a maximum of two customers at a time. If there would be more than two customers at a time in my house, I needed to get an office.)
Call city hall and ask. They'll tell you what you want to know.
SCO is not claiming IBM put actual SCO code into Linux
You should read the article:
McBride: We will use our best efforts to protect our source code.
I realize that you're entirely correct with regards to the court document, but since this McBride character is a SCO PR guy, it sounds like that's exactly what they're claiming in this article.
Seriously, if the Sun and the earth were the only two objects (no third body problems, PLEASE!!!) and they were point masses then it should from a newtonian perspective always revolve with the same speed for all time.
If there were no third bodies (as you said), and the sun and earth were in a closed, complete vaccuum with no other matter (which they're not), and the radiant energy from the sun didn't have any effect on the earth's movement (which it does - albeit very, very slight) then yeah, they should always rotate the same speed for all time..
But to paraphrase Suzie Derkins, "as long as you're wishing, you should ask for a pony."
I read an interview with Rick Mercer about this, and it's one of the funniest things I've ever read.. the story behind the whole thing is funnier than what you saw on TV..
Rick and the crew were outside the Arkansas legislature building, getting the typical "man on the street" responses, when someone from the Governor's office comes out and asks where the're from... Rick gives them the "we're from CBC television getting reaction from the people of Arkansas, blah, blah (he notes that nobody questions why Canadians would want to know the opinion of someone from Arkansas).. they immediately get hustled into the Governor's office, where they get an interview with Mike Huckabee.. he said he was sweating bullets, because he knew that anyone could just open up an internet connection and see that the House of Commons is not an igloo, but nobody ever did..
Then, just before the interview, Huckabee says he wants a private chat with Mercer, and pulls him aside.. at this point, Rick is thinking "damn, we've been made.." but Huckabee just says to him: "This here igloo, it's not controversial in any way is it? Because it wouldn't look right for me to be making a comment about something that's controversial to Canada." Rick assures him that no sir, there is nothing controversial about it at all..
They get their interview, and as Rick put it "got the hell outta Dodge, before anyone wised up."
perpetual motion is possible!... Proof? Earth's revolution around the sun, the moon's revolution around the earth etc.
Suggesting that the movement of celestial bodies is "perpetual motion" is ludicrous.
"Perpetual motion" (in the context used here) means that you can extract more energy from a device than you put in - which is clearly impossible.
Even taken literally (ie. that something will continue to move forever), it's still not possible - your examples just show that you don't have a very firm grasp of physics, or knowledge of astronomy or geology.
The earth will not continue revolving around the sun indefinitely. It's gradually slowing down, and will probably be consumed by the sun before it comes to a complete halt.
I hope you're not saying that NAT alone provides any form of security at all.
Depends on the type of NAT.
The NAT used by most gateway devices (like Linux's Masquerading) does provide some measure of security, even if you've not implemented any packet filters..
If your gateway device implements no filtering at all, and you're using NAT, the devices behind your NAT gateway are invisible to the outside world, as the only packets that will reach them are ones associated with an existing connection.
In this respect, NAT is kind of like a "poor-man's" stateful packet filtering - which is probably why the two are so closely linked in the 2.4 kernel.
If you argue that it provides no security, then I can use that same argument to show that stateful inspection adds no security either (which every security professional I know would disagree with.)
Just about every legal solution to a technological problems end up backfiring.
The thing is, spam isn't a techological problem, it's a social one.
If spam were purely a techological problem, there would be a technological solution. The fact that there are people out there who don't care that they're harrassing millions of innocent people means that there is no technological solution.
your mail server then contacts yahoo's mail server (looked up by the official DNS record) to make sure that bob@yahoo.com is really the one who sent the email.
And how is yahoo's mail server supposed to know if bob@yahoo.com is really the one who sent the mail?
If I have a yahoo account, and I'm using kmail to compose and send mail, yahoo's servers will never know if I really sent the mail.
Next, it provides nothing that doesn't already exist, and doesn't do anything to actually stop spam. There is already accountability available - you look at the headers to get the sender's IP address.
Your solution has been proposed many times by people who don't understand how SMTP works. It's main problem is that while it doesn't impact one very limited use of SMTP, it breaks 99% of the functionality and flexibilty that SMTP provides, without actually doing anything about stopping spam.
commercial speech raises the fewest concerns when it comes to infringing on free speech
This is false. It raises no more concerns about free speech than any other type of spam.
Free speech is the right to say what you want. It is not the right to force people to listen, nor is it the right to force people to pay you to speak.
Spammers have the right to speak, however they do not have the right to speak to me if I don't want them to, nor do they have the right to waste my bandwidth.
Please cite the relevent law that details this exception to the perjury statute.
He was questioned about his personal sex life. Please cite the releveant law that details where the sexual activities the President performs with consnsual partners is anyone else's business.
BTW, thanks for admitting that Clinton DID lie under oath.
You're welcome, although I didn't realize that my opinion on the matter was so important to you.
Are there any other meaningless actions I can do that will make your life a little bit better?
I haven't found a single dissenter who protested the bombing of Kosovo or Clinton's missile attacks on Iraq.
You have now.
Clinton's actions in attacking Iraq were dispicable, and tarnishes the efforts he made to end violence in the middle east.
It's also true that many people supported Clinton despite the shame he brought upon the presidency.
Depends on what you mean by "shame" - if it's the forementioned middle-east actions, then I'm with you. If it's the Lewinsky "scandal", you need to get your priorities straightened out.
Yes, he lied under oath, but he lied to a question that should not have been asked. Lewinsky had no bearing on how well he ran the country.
how come there are no French cars in the US?... Renault make pretty decent cars.
The problem with Renault in the US is that they spent all this money in the 1980's advertising the "Le Car".. which turned out to be the French version of the AMC Pacer..
Now whenever someone hears the word "Reneault", they automatically think "Le Car", and head away.
Why don't they sue the individuals paying the spammers to send the emails
Because, as much as we might not like it, stupidity is not a crime.
Spammers are con-artists - the only difference between spam and bilking little old ladies out of their life savings is that spammers have two sets of victims - the people they con to pay them, and the recipients of the spam.
Should we also start suing the little old ladies who get caught by con-men pretending to be bank officers? It think this would have the same effect as suing people who hire the spammers (ie, none - there are always stupid people to be bilked.)
Yes, the people paying the spammers are stupid for falling for the spammers' lies - but stupidity isn't a crime.
Haven't tested it yet, but it looks like it will work.
Masquerading H.323 has worked on the 2.2 series since 2.2.16.. it's pretty useless if you're running 2.4 though (which means you get to choose between 2.4.x, or H.323.)
In my case, I needed features in 2.4, so no masquraded H.323 for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you're having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
He's too stupid to know he's wrong.
I know several people who paint simply because they enjoy to paint. They don't paint for money or for praise or to make cheap presents. There is no poignant statement or message, just simply because they enjoy creating the act of painting.
*sigh* And if a tree falls in the forest, then it doesn't make any sound, right?
Their paintings are an expression of something inside them, which is a message. Whether anyone else ever sees that message is irrelevant - it's still there.
Most architecture has a definite purpose (holding up a roof; not exactly right, but I'm sure you get my meaning)
Most writing has a definite purpose, too (telling a story) - does that mean it's not art either?
they may well be beautiful and conjure up all sorts of emotions in people, but they are not art.
Funny, because that's pretty much what art is.
"Art", as an expression is supposed to invoke a reaction in it's audience. If an object inspires emotion in you (either good or bad), then it's probably art - especially if the person who designed it did so precisely to inspire you.
Methinks you have too narrow a definition of "art".
I looked into starting my own business a few years ago - I called city hall and asked about a business license.
They told me everything I needed to know (basically, $65 for a business license - I could run it out of my house, but only if there were a maximum of two customers at a time. If there would be more than two customers at a time in my house, I needed to get an office.)
Call city hall and ask. They'll tell you what you want to know.
You should read the article:
I realize that you're entirely correct with regards to the court document, but since this McBride character is a SCO PR guy, it sounds like that's exactly what they're claiming in this article.
I didn't get AIDS from a woman but from a virus.
:o)
:o)
well.. ok, you can scratch the last one.
No, that's crabs that makes you scratch - and that's a parasite, not a virus
Not that I know from experience, though
You just viloated the EULA by posting the EULA.
:o)
Only if he accepted it.
see, if he didn't accept it, then he's not bound by it, and can do anything he wants, within the bounds of fair use.
Seriously, if the Sun and the earth were the only two objects (no third body problems, PLEASE!!!) and they were point masses then it should from a newtonian perspective always revolve with the same speed for all time.
If there were no third bodies (as you said), and the sun and earth were in a closed, complete vaccuum with no other matter (which they're not), and the radiant energy from the sun didn't have any effect on the earth's movement (which it does - albeit very, very slight) then yeah, they should always rotate the same speed for all time..
But to paraphrase Suzie Derkins, "as long as you're wishing, you should ask for a pony."
As I understand it quartz and other crystals have a periodic vibration
it's been awhile, but my understanding is that they only have a periodic vibration if you run a current through them
By the same token, tapping a crystal to make it vibrate will produce a (brief) electrical current.
This is *not a troll*, he actually said it!
I read an interview with Rick Mercer about this, and it's one of the funniest things I've ever read.. the story behind the whole thing is funnier than what you saw on TV..
Rick and the crew were outside the Arkansas legislature building, getting the typical "man on the street" responses, when someone from the Governor's office comes out and asks where the're from... Rick gives them the "we're from CBC television getting reaction from the people of Arkansas, blah, blah (he notes that nobody questions why Canadians would want to know the opinion of someone from Arkansas).. they immediately get hustled into the Governor's office, where they get an interview with Mike Huckabee.. he said he was sweating bullets, because he knew that anyone could just open up an internet connection and see that the House of Commons is not an igloo, but nobody ever did..
Then, just before the interview, Huckabee says he wants a private chat with Mercer, and pulls him aside.. at this point, Rick is thinking "damn, we've been made.." but Huckabee just says to him: "This here igloo, it's not controversial in any way is it? Because it wouldn't look right for me to be making a comment about something that's controversial to Canada." Rick assures him that no sir, there is nothing controversial about it at all..
They get their interview, and as Rick put it "got the hell outta Dodge, before anyone wised up."
perpetual motion is possible! ... Proof? Earth's revolution around the sun, the moon's revolution around the earth etc.
Suggesting that the movement of celestial bodies is "perpetual motion" is ludicrous.
"Perpetual motion" (in the context used here) means that you can extract more energy from a device than you put in - which is clearly impossible.
Even taken literally (ie. that something will continue to move forever), it's still not possible - your examples just show that you don't have a very firm grasp of physics, or knowledge of astronomy or geology.
The earth will not continue revolving around the sun indefinitely. It's gradually slowing down, and will probably be consumed by the sun before it comes to a complete halt.
Can't believe that in Slashdot, and in the 21st century, some people still think you can get "free energy"... sigh...
:o)
Hey, you can!
Just run an extension cord over to your neighbor's house when he's sleeping
That's like an electric motor reclaiming it's power by running it through a generator.
:o)
I actually tried to build one of those when I was 8... I was pretty disappointed when it didn't work.
Amusingly enough though, my teacher couldn't explain why it didn't work..
It was a couple of years before I found out about the laws of thermodynamics
it would cease to be useful as a phone.
:o)
No, you just have to pick it up every few minutes to see if someone's calling you!
(insert joke about interrupts/polling here
I hope you're not saying that NAT alone provides any form of security at all.
Depends on the type of NAT.
The NAT used by most gateway devices (like Linux's Masquerading) does provide some measure of security, even if you've not implemented any packet filters..
If your gateway device implements no filtering at all, and you're using NAT, the devices behind your NAT gateway are invisible to the outside world, as the only packets that will reach them are ones associated with an existing connection.
In this respect, NAT is kind of like a "poor-man's" stateful packet filtering - which is probably why the two are so closely linked in the 2.4 kernel.
If you argue that it provides no security, then I can use that same argument to show that stateful inspection adds no security either (which every security professional I know would disagree with.)
Just about every legal solution to a technological problems end up backfiring.
The thing is, spam isn't a techological problem, it's a social one.
If spam were purely a techological problem, there would be a technological solution. The fact that there are people out there who don't care that they're harrassing millions of innocent people means that there is no technological solution.
your mail server then contacts yahoo's mail server (looked up by the official DNS record) to make sure that bob@yahoo.com is really the one who sent the email.
And how is yahoo's mail server supposed to know if bob@yahoo.com is really the one who sent the mail?
If I have a yahoo account, and I'm using kmail to compose and send mail, yahoo's servers will never know if I really sent the mail.
Next, it provides nothing that doesn't already exist, and doesn't do anything to actually stop spam. There is already accountability available - you look at the headers to get the sender's IP address.
Your solution has been proposed many times by people who don't understand how SMTP works. It's main problem is that while it doesn't impact one very limited use of SMTP, it breaks 99% of the functionality and flexibilty that SMTP provides, without actually doing anything about stopping spam.
commercial speech raises the fewest concerns when it comes to infringing on free speech
This is false. It raises no more concerns about free speech than any other type of spam.
Free speech is the right to say what you want. It is not the right to force people to listen, nor is it the right to force people to pay you to speak.
Spammers have the right to speak, however they do not have the right to speak to me if I don't want them to, nor do they have the right to waste my bandwidth.
The whole "free speech" issue is a red herring.
I'm in the same camp as the article author - the wheel is OK as a wheel, but sucks as a mouse button..
there is a tumb button that is useful if you think the middle mouse button on the scroll is somewhat useless
I've got one of those - after 5 minutes of use, I promptly gave it to my wife..
The thumb button is pretty useless, as when I use it, the mouse moves 1/4 inch to the right...
Please cite the relevent law that details this exception to the perjury statute.
He was questioned about his personal sex life. Please cite the releveant law that details where the sexual activities the President performs with consnsual partners is anyone else's business.
BTW, thanks for admitting that Clinton DID lie under oath.
You're welcome, although I didn't realize that my opinion on the matter was so important to you.
Are there any other meaningless actions I can do that will make your life a little bit better?
how would these "nano bots" fix his body if he decided to take a vacation in a volcano?
:o)
Maybe they'd make the volcano eject him via an updraft, the island would sink, and he'd be stuck with Meg Ryan on unsinkable luggage.
I haven't found a single dissenter who protested the bombing of Kosovo or Clinton's missile attacks on Iraq.
You have now.
Clinton's actions in attacking Iraq were dispicable, and tarnishes the efforts he made to end violence in the middle east.
It's also true that many people supported Clinton despite the shame he brought upon the presidency.
Depends on what you mean by "shame" - if it's the forementioned middle-east actions, then I'm with you. If it's the Lewinsky "scandal", you need to get your priorities straightened out.
Yes, he lied under oath, but he lied to a question that should not have been asked. Lewinsky had no bearing on how well he ran the country.
how come there are no French cars in the US? ... Renault make pretty decent cars.
The problem with Renault in the US is that they spent all this money in the 1980's advertising the "Le Car".. which turned out to be the French version of the AMC Pacer..
Now whenever someone hears the word "Reneault", they automatically think "Le Car", and head away.
AMC cars had something of a reputation of having problems compared with other makes, but they looked nice.
:o)
Don't tell me, let me guess:
You bought every color of Imac ever made, right?
Why don't they sue the individuals paying the spammers to send the emails
Because, as much as we might not like it, stupidity is not a crime.
Spammers are con-artists - the only difference between spam and bilking little old ladies out of their life savings is that spammers have two sets of victims - the people they con to pay them, and the recipients of the spam.
Should we also start suing the little old ladies who get caught by con-men pretending to be bank officers? It think this would have the same effect as suing people who hire the spammers (ie, none - there are always stupid people to be bilked.)
Yes, the people paying the spammers are stupid for falling for the spammers' lies - but stupidity isn't a crime.
Haven't tested it yet, but it looks like it will work.
Masquerading H.323 has worked on the 2.2 series since 2.2.16.. it's pretty useless if you're running 2.4 though (which means you get to choose between 2.4.x, or H.323.)
In my case, I needed features in 2.4, so no masquraded H.323 for me.