Besides, it keeps unemployment down. You can't find a job? You can always pump gas.
Really? Does that explain why Oregon (the only other state I know of which has full-serve only laws) is currently leading the nation in unemployment? The vaunted New Jersey is also in the top half.
I've heard the claim, "Requiring full-service gas stations keeps unemployment rates down," many times, but I've never heard any supporting evidence and I just don't believe it.
I'd say the only reasonable answer to this question is that the humans have it wrong. The robots are in fact not using humans as batteries but for some other purpose (albeit a not-yet-revealed one).
Hemos' commentary is quite the misinformed hysteria.
The entire story is in italics, which indicates that it's all attributed to the submitter (D\monix) and not the poster (Hemos). Any commentary from story posters on Slashdot is always show in a non-italicized font.
What about when you bump into a known terrorist (or someone who simply looks like a known terrorist) in the airport (or possibly get into an argument with him in the parking lot) and the face recognition software adds your face to the "watch list"?
Does this seem far-fetched to you? And even if it is now, will it be in ten years?
That might be the case, if it weren't for the explicit license at the bottom of the document to reproduce the document in full "in any media" as long as said license is preserved as well.
I'm fairly certain that the point of those questions is not to catch people attempting to bring munitions or explosives onto planes. It's to force people to be accountable for whatever illegal items they're carrying, whether they be guns, bombs, or drugs. In other words, it's to invalidate the, "That's not mine; someone must have slipped that into my bag!" argument.
"How could someone possibly have slipped that into your bag, sir, when you explicitly stated that you packed it yourself and that it hasn't been out of your control since?"
Well said. I believe you have just stumbled
on the solution. Unfortunately, people won't
have the guts to go through with it. We don't
deserve freedom.
If only this message could get across, I have no
doubt that bankruptingly low enrollment, with
large amounts of feedback to the university as
to the reason, would give this program the scarlet
letter of unprofitability.
One could argue that this (ie, the inability of large groups of people to make the appropiate choice in cases like these) demonstrates a flaw in the relationship between human nature and free markets. Since it's very difficult to alter human nature, then the best way to rectify the flaw would be to modify the market system.
G-Force, also known as "Battle of the Planets", first aired in the US from '78-'79. It didn't take me long to find what looks at first glance like a site with some reasonably good info, although I'm sure that without looking too hard you could find a ton of other sites out there dedicated to the show.
what the [expletive] are you talking about? my post doesn't have question marks in place of apostrophes.
Try viewing it in a browser other then MSIE on MS Windows.
Actually, I viewed his post using Netscape 4.7 (on NT), and the curly quotes showed up fine. There's a chart I frequently use at BBS, Inc. which lists the ISO 8859-1 characters and also includes the HTML entity names. Netscape fails to support many of these entities (and I don't think they're MS inventions), while IE fails to support fewer of them.
Perhaps you have an older version of Netscape which isn't as compliant as the one I'm using?
You should include a feature to not ask if it should be added to the trust realm. It would get annoying to have to respond every time I visit a new page.
I believe that's what was intended in:
1.First, let the user turn on the 'explicit hosts only' checkbox to 'on' from the default 'off'. There, any issue people have with 'breaking the web as we know it' is irrelevant. It's optional.
Everything else only happens in the event that the user decides to enable the feature.
Presumably, it would also only ask once for each domain/host/. In other words, if you said "No, don't add it to the trust domain," it would store that information and not ask about that particular site again.
I also agree with Kaa's comment about verifying each cookie being annoying, but I think this is only the case because Netscape doesn't bother remembering your preferences for each domain. It asks each and every time a cookie is set, rather than silently denying cookies you've previously rejected.
It seems like an interface closer to the one proposed (which reminds me of the way cookies are handled in IE, although not having used it for ages, I'm not certain) would be quite useable, as well as useful.
Correction: that's 1.9 dollars to the mark. In other words, you're looking at about $68 to purchase the printed version (20 DM + 16 DM postage = 36 DM = $68). Seems a bit excessive for a calendar.
Slashdot Mirror
The nice thing about phone sex is that you don't have to let on what kind of balls you actually have.
Sorry, I should read a bit more closely. Here's the correct link.
Check the cache of the homepage, if you want to at least see the house. The image seems to be on another server.
Really? Does that explain why Oregon (the only other state I know of which has full-serve only laws) is currently leading the nation in unemployment? The vaunted New Jersey is also in the top half.
I've heard the claim, "Requiring full-service gas stations keeps unemployment rates down," many times, but I've never heard any supporting evidence and I just don't believe it.
Perhaps if the code actually executed you'd end up with a better grade.
And one man's treasure is another man's trash.;-)
It's a good thing that the Universe wasn't written in C++. Otherwise, our friends would be able to access our private members.
Proving once again how effective reverse psychology is on moderators. ;-)
I'd say the only reasonable answer to this question is that the humans have it wrong. The robots are in fact not using humans as batteries but for some other purpose (albeit a not-yet-revealed one).
The entire story is in italics, which indicates that it's all attributed to the submitter (D\monix) and not the poster (Hemos). Any commentary from story posters on Slashdot is always show in a non-italicized font.
Just because you're not very good at it doesn't mean you're not doing it. ;-)
I think the point was that it's ironic, not that it's implausible.
What about when you bump into a known terrorist (or someone who simply looks like a known terrorist) in the airport (or possibly get into an argument with him in the parking lot) and the face recognition software adds your face to the "watch list"?
Does this seem far-fetched to you? And even if it is now, will it be in ten years?
That might be the case, if it weren't for the explicit license at the bottom of the document to reproduce the document in full "in any media" as long as said license is preserved as well.
I'm fairly certain that the point of those questions is not to catch people attempting to bring munitions or explosives onto planes. It's to force people to be accountable for whatever illegal items they're carrying, whether they be guns, bombs, or drugs. In other words, it's to invalidate the, "That's not mine; someone must have slipped that into my bag!" argument.
"How could someone possibly have slipped that into your bag, sir, when you explicitly stated that you packed it yourself and that it hasn't been out of your control since?"
I would never suggest anyone evade taxes in a public forum.
Yes, much better to evade taxes in the privacy of your own home.
Well said. I believe you have just stumbled on the solution. Unfortunately, people won't have the guts to go through with it. We don't deserve freedom.
If only this message could get across, I have no doubt that bankruptingly low enrollment, with large amounts of feedback to the university as to the reason, would give this program the scarlet letter of unprofitability.
One could argue that this (ie, the inability of large groups of people to make the appropiate choice in cases like these) demonstrates a flaw in the relationship between human nature and free markets. Since it's very difficult to alter human nature, then the best way to rectify the flaw would be to modify the market system.
G-Force, also known as "Battle of the Planets", first aired in the US from '78-'79. It didn't take me long to find what looks at first glance like a site with some reasonably good info, although I'm sure that without looking too hard you could find a ton of other sites out there dedicated to the show.
And when America Online started, it was Mac-only (based originally on software licensed/purchased from Apple).
Actually, I viewed his post using Netscape 4.7 (on NT), and the curly quotes showed up fine. There's a chart I frequently use at BBS, Inc. which lists the ISO 8859-1 characters and also includes the HTML entity names. Netscape fails to support many of these entities (and I don't think they're MS inventions), while IE fails to support fewer of them.
Perhaps you have an older version of Netscape which isn't as compliant as the one I'm using?
I believe that's what was intended in:
Everything else only happens in the event that the user decides to enable the feature.Presumably, it would also only ask once for each domain/host/. In other words, if you said "No, don't add it to the trust domain," it would store that information and not ask about that particular site again.
I also agree with Kaa's comment about verifying each cookie being annoying, but I think this is only the case because Netscape doesn't bother remembering your preferences for each domain. It asks each and every time a cookie is set, rather than silently denying cookies you've previously rejected.
It seems like an interface closer to the one proposed (which reminds me of the way cookies are handled in IE, although not having used it for ages, I'm not certain) would be quite useable, as well as useful.
Correction: that's 1.9 dollars to the mark. In other words, you're looking at about $68 to purchase the printed version (20 DM + 16 DM postage = 36 DM = $68). Seems a bit excessive for a calendar.
DM=Deutsch (German) Marks. They're currently approximately 1.9 to the dollar.