Warren Buffett is giving 10% of his wealth to the Gates Foundation every year, and has done other philanthropic work. He's never had plans to give it to his children. And he's done a pretty decent job of managing his wealth without harming the average workers at his companies.
I believe that there's a 4th kind of factor: something you can do. For example, you might be able to pick out some of your favorite items, even though you don't remember which favorite items you registered. Or you might be able to type your password in a different rhythm than anyone else can (without a lot of practice); again, it's not something that you can memorize/remember/know, and it's not really something that you are or have.
Bruce Schneier has an article on one of these kinds of authentication factors.
It sounds funny, but quite possibly the most cost-effective solution. I once needed to convert some documents from an old StarOffice format to an XML-based DocBook format. I looked into pulling them into OpenOffice and saving them as ODF, then writing a conversion program. Then I looked into having it outsourced. It would have actually been cheaper to have somebody in India re-type the entire 700 page document in the new format than spend my own labor writing a conversion program.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not of journalists. At the time it was written, "the press" meant "the printing press", not "people who write". So it means that people have the right to publish their ideas. It does not mean that certain people have the right to publish their ideas. So defining "journalist" should have no affect on First Amendment freedoms.
Of course, if judges are too stupid or corrupt to realize this, then we're all screwed.
I was going to say something similar. Perhaps when we start seeing the costs, we'll start working on the problem. Hopefully it won't be too late by then.
I don't understand why the environmentally-minded folks don't try to talk more about the costs. Basically, speak in a language that Conservatives/Republicans can understand, to get them to take actions in their own interest.
The way I like to put it is this: Imagine 9 out of 10 doctors tell you that you're going to die unless you take some specific actions. Most likely, you'd take those actions, to preserve your future self-interests. Now imagine 9 out of 10 experts on the climate tell you that if you don't stop/reverse global warming by taking some specific steps, you're going to have to spend trillions of dollars to protect or rebuild coastal cities, as well as severe weather situations away from the coast. If you're rational, you'd most likely take those actions, to preserve your future self-interests.
Luckily, if they're just counting web bandwidth, we can just use other protocols, or tunnel through other protocols.
Duh! The Internet is not equivalent to the Web. Especially since BitTorrent takes up a large part of the bandwidth used these days. (And perhaps video/audio streaming protocols, but I'm not sure if those are primarily HTTP-based or using other protocols (RTSP, RTP, etc.) these days.)
The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
Then again, I'm not sure how much of what they do furthers their mission. It would seem that most of the things they do actually restrict freedom of movement.
The Internet has provided an excellent medium for freely expressing different viewpoints. But governments and businesses are increasingly threatened by such freedoms, and doing a lot to suppress them. How do you see this playing out, and how can we ensure that we keep such freedoms?
And how, exactly, is the KKK not a terrorist organization? They've actually been known to -- get this -- terrorize black people. They've bombed houses and churches, lynched people, and burned crosses in people's yards to scare them.
I'm also a big Roundcube fan, and use it on several sites. The nice thing about it is that you can just point it at an IMAP server, and it uses the IMAP server for authentication. It's quite easy to set up, and the GUI is a lot nicer than other competitors, like SquirrelMail.
Zimbra is nice too, but seems to lock you into a full stack of software. (There have been promises of a stand-alone version, but I've never been able to find it.) That might be the right answer for the original poster, but I found it too limiting and inflexible for my needs.
if they're "raising" 1B... Does anybody know what the estimated market cap will be?
$1 billion, by definition, right? At least until the trading begins.
Bzzt - Wrong!
If they're selling 10% of the company for $1 billion, then the valuation will be $10 billion. They're not selling off 100% of the company to raise the capital.
The GPL states that sub-licensees (i.e. Party C) receive all the same rights that licensees receive. So any use of A's code by C is perfectly fine, even if it came through Party B.
Where it could get tricky is if Party C uses code that Party B wrote and claims in not licensed under the GPL. This is where the courts have to come in and straighten things out. But section 5 of the GPLv2 says that "by modifying or distributing the Program [...], you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions". And one of those conditions is that modified versions be licensed under the same license. So Party C has a pretty strong case that the code that they received from Party B is licensed under the GPL. (Because the fact that it was modified and distributed is prima facie evidence that the license was accepted by Party B.)
The really difficult worse case is if Party B were to use code stolen from Party D and then integrated into the GPL code from Party A. Party D would have a valid claim stating that they had no intention for the code to be GPLed and did not accept the license, and Party B had no right to accept it for them. I would suspect that such a case would be handled similarly to a case of unwittingly receiving stolen property -- you're not in trouble for having it, but you have to give it back.
Genetics is not the only "programming" that your body has. Epigenetics also plays a large role. It's also likely that the mix of nutrients (and hormones) you receive in the womb and as a child will play a large role. Add to that early psychological influences and other "nurture" factors, and it becomes very hard to predict outcomes.
There's research showing that boys with older brothers have a 10% higher chance of being gay for each older brother. The leading theory is that the hormones in the mother's womb are changed permanently due to the presence of the fetal boys. (I'm not sure if there's any research comparing those raised with older brothers versus those born but not raised without older brothers -- that would be interesting and help eliminate the nature/nurture issue.)
So there is very good evidence that some parts of you are somewhat pre-determined, even if they're not genetic. In the same way that you cannot choose (with too much success) to be short or tall, you're not able to have much effect on the way that you are "wired".
Carlin has a decent point, but it misses one thing -- people who decide to become politicians are not necessarily representative of the general population, in terms of personality characteristics. For example, politicians tend to be more extroverted than the general population, and there's some evidence to suggest that they are more likely to have sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies. Also, the political system tends to corrupt those in power, bending their morals.
Plastic is generally made from oil, and we're still making lots of plastic. So it doesn't make sense to turn some of that plastic back into oil, instead of recycling the plastic into new plastic products. It just wastes energy converting it back and forth.
Such is the fame of the secrecy that an audience member cannot reasonably attend without knowing their role to play in guarding it, and thus an oral contract, implied in fact, has taken place.
Wait, what?
An oral contract is not an implied contract. An oral contract is spoken, and verbally accepted. I have a hard time believing that everyone who attends verbally agrees to not disclosing the ending. And I have a hard time understanding how there is an implied contract by attendees that they won't disclose the ending.
BTW, where did you get this quoted text? I didn't see it in TFA or TFS.
The problem is in the interpretation of "freedom of the press", or more specifically "the press". The original meaning was the process of writing and publishing. But the modern meaning of "the press" is the people formally in the writing and publishing business. So instead of EVERYONE being granted protection for what they write and publish, we now grant some of those protections only to a protected class. So the wedge has been working its way for quite some time, taking away the rights of every person to write and publish freely.
Slashdot Mirror
Title says it all.
Then why did you continue writing 11 more sentences?
Warren Buffett is giving 10% of his wealth to the Gates Foundation every year, and has done other philanthropic work. He's never had plans to give it to his children. And he's done a pretty decent job of managing his wealth without harming the average workers at his companies.
I believe that there's a 4th kind of factor: something you can do. For example, you might be able to pick out some of your favorite items, even though you don't remember which favorite items you registered. Or you might be able to type your password in a different rhythm than anyone else can (without a lot of practice); again, it's not something that you can memorize/remember/know, and it's not really something that you are or have. Bruce Schneier has an article on one of these kinds of authentication factors.
It sounds funny, but quite possibly the most cost-effective solution. I once needed to convert some documents from an old StarOffice format to an XML-based DocBook format. I looked into pulling them into OpenOffice and saving them as ODF, then writing a conversion program. Then I looked into having it outsourced. It would have actually been cheaper to have somebody in India re-type the entire 700 page document in the new format than spend my own labor writing a conversion program.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not of journalists. At the time it was written, "the press" meant "the printing press", not "people who write". So it means that people have the right to publish their ideas. It does not mean that certain people have the right to publish their ideas. So defining "journalist" should have no affect on First Amendment freedoms.
Of course, if judges are too stupid or corrupt to realize this, then we're all screwed.
I was going to say something similar. Perhaps when we start seeing the costs, we'll start working on the problem. Hopefully it won't be too late by then.
I don't understand why the environmentally-minded folks don't try to talk more about the costs. Basically, speak in a language that Conservatives/Republicans can understand, to get them to take actions in their own interest.
The way I like to put it is this: Imagine 9 out of 10 doctors tell you that you're going to die unless you take some specific actions. Most likely, you'd take those actions, to preserve your future self-interests. Now imagine 9 out of 10 experts on the climate tell you that if you don't stop/reverse global warming by taking some specific steps, you're going to have to spend trillions of dollars to protect or rebuild coastal cities, as well as severe weather situations away from the coast. If you're rational, you'd most likely take those actions, to preserve your future self-interests.
Luckily, if they're just counting web bandwidth, we can just use other protocols, or tunnel through other protocols.
Duh! The Internet is not equivalent to the Web. Especially since BitTorrent takes up a large part of the bandwidth used these days. (And perhaps video/audio streaming protocols, but I'm not sure if those are primarily HTTP-based or using other protocols (RTSP, RTP, etc.) these days.)
Next time you send them an email or letter, be sure to CC your Attorney General.
I'm not quite sure how that meets their mission:
The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
Then again, I'm not sure how much of what they do furthers their mission. It would seem that most of the things they do actually restrict freedom of movement.
The Internet has provided an excellent medium for freely expressing different viewpoints. But governments and businesses are increasingly threatened by such freedoms, and doing a lot to suppress them. How do you see this playing out, and how can we ensure that we keep such freedoms?
Obscure references FTW!
And how, exactly, is the KKK not a terrorist organization? They've actually been known to -- get this -- terrorize black people. They've bombed houses and churches, lynched people, and burned crosses in people's yards to scare them.
I'm also a big Roundcube fan, and use it on several sites. The nice thing about it is that you can just point it at an IMAP server, and it uses the IMAP server for authentication. It's quite easy to set up, and the GUI is a lot nicer than other competitors, like SquirrelMail.
Zimbra is nice too, but seems to lock you into a full stack of software. (There have been promises of a stand-alone version, but I've never been able to find it.) That might be the right answer for the original poster, but I found it too limiting and inflexible for my needs.
Down here in Missouri, we say that if we gave the bootheel to Arkansas, it would raise the IQ of both states.
if they're "raising" 1B ... Does anybody know what the estimated market cap will be?
$1 billion, by definition, right? At least until the trading begins.
Bzzt - Wrong!
If they're selling 10% of the company for $1 billion, then the valuation will be $10 billion. They're not selling off 100% of the company to raise the capital.
Not only that, but the scene has several layers that move in parallax as you move your mouse pointer.
github 404 page
OAuth still requires a key specific to the developer.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court said that Congress should get to decide what it means to promote progress.
The GPL states that sub-licensees (i.e. Party C) receive all the same rights that licensees receive. So any use of A's code by C is perfectly fine, even if it came through Party B.
Where it could get tricky is if Party C uses code that Party B wrote and claims in not licensed under the GPL. This is where the courts have to come in and straighten things out. But section 5 of the GPLv2 says that "by modifying or distributing the Program [...], you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions". And one of those conditions is that modified versions be licensed under the same license. So Party C has a pretty strong case that the code that they received from Party B is licensed under the GPL. (Because the fact that it was modified and distributed is prima facie evidence that the license was accepted by Party B.)
The really difficult worse case is if Party B were to use code stolen from Party D and then integrated into the GPL code from Party A. Party D would have a valid claim stating that they had no intention for the code to be GPLed and did not accept the license, and Party B had no right to accept it for them. I would suspect that such a case would be handled similarly to a case of unwittingly receiving stolen property -- you're not in trouble for having it, but you have to give it back.
Genetics is not the only "programming" that your body has. Epigenetics also plays a large role. It's also likely that the mix of nutrients (and hormones) you receive in the womb and as a child will play a large role. Add to that early psychological influences and other "nurture" factors, and it becomes very hard to predict outcomes.
There's research showing that boys with older brothers have a 10% higher chance of being gay for each older brother. The leading theory is that the hormones in the mother's womb are changed permanently due to the presence of the fetal boys. (I'm not sure if there's any research comparing those raised with older brothers versus those born but not raised without older brothers -- that would be interesting and help eliminate the nature/nurture issue.)
So there is very good evidence that some parts of you are somewhat pre-determined, even if they're not genetic. In the same way that you cannot choose (with too much success) to be short or tall, you're not able to have much effect on the way that you are "wired".
Carlin has a decent point, but it misses one thing -- people who decide to become politicians are not necessarily representative of the general population, in terms of personality characteristics. For example, politicians tend to be more extroverted than the general population, and there's some evidence to suggest that they are more likely to have sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies. Also, the political system tends to corrupt those in power, bending their morals.
Plastic is generally made from oil, and we're still making lots of plastic. So it doesn't make sense to turn some of that plastic back into oil, instead of recycling the plastic into new plastic products. It just wastes energy converting it back and forth.
And exactly when did I agree to their terms and conditions?
Wait, what?
An oral contract is not an implied contract. An oral contract is spoken, and verbally accepted. I have a hard time believing that everyone who attends verbally agrees to not disclosing the ending. And I have a hard time understanding how there is an implied contract by attendees that they won't disclose the ending.
BTW, where did you get this quoted text? I didn't see it in TFA or TFS.
The problem is in the interpretation of "freedom of the press", or more specifically "the press". The original meaning was the process of writing and publishing. But the modern meaning of "the press" is the people formally in the writing and publishing business. So instead of EVERYONE being granted protection for what they write and publish, we now grant some of those protections only to a protected class. So the wedge has been working its way for quite some time, taking away the rights of every person to write and publish freely.