What I hate are those fscking CDs AOL keeps sending. Some of the cases are ok, but in general they're a pain in the ass. Hey, AOL, WE DON'T NEED YOUR STUPID 'FREE' CDs!!!
I just remember 'Nissa' (sp?) - late in the Tom Baker era, same time as Adric. She didn't follow the usual female companion clothing trend, so in her last episode, she bascially undressed through the entire thing.
I don't have time to continue this debate in detail, so I'm going to be terse.
I'm happy your brother is happy. A lot of teenagers commit suicide from guilt over being told their 'inclinations' are a sin. Child molesters and rapists hurt other people. Gay people (ignoring other traits not related to being gay) do not.
Sodom and Ghomorrah: you need to read the entire section again. Pay careful attention to the part where Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the rioting crowd. In OT thinking, that seems to be an OK alterntative.
Keep in mind that "homosexuality = sin" is your view based on religion. Nobody else is required to hold your view. Pedophilia and Murder are illegal for good reason- they hurt other people. Comparing them to homosexuality is a red herring.
A lot of people do a lot of things that would send them to hell based on OT teaching. I'd be willing to bet you do some things that Leviticus forbids.
Lastly, in societies where homosexuality has been punishable by death, it hasn't gone away. Some 'choice'.
When did you make the personal choice to be straight?
You see, I feel left out. I never got that choice. I was born straight, and have never felt the slightest inclination to have sex with a man.
So what I'm wondering is- if I never had the choice- and I'm guessing you never had the choice- why are some people different in that they seem to have this 'choice'?
Can we not discriminate against people who are faced with the choice of which gender they will desire sexually?
Since women have 'most' of the same rights as men, can we go back to restricting them from going to medical school? Running for office? I mean, we're not forcing them to work more hours than normal, after all.
Personally, I see gay rights like emancipation and sufferage. It will happen, but it's a long way off.
As for firing Christians- we are nowhere near that situation. And never will be. When someone says "we don't want the ten commandments on the courtroom wall" they are also saying "we don't want the bhagavad gita on the courtroom wall". Something like 80-90% of this nation believe in a higher being. Many of us are just afraid of having a specific higher being (or any higher being) rammed down our throats.
If you have a 90% power position, going down to 80% feels pretty scary, but it's not the end of the world.
A brute force search would take a long time, but a dictionary attack will find it VERY quickly. A=4 A=@ E=3 O=0 S=$ I=! L=1 C=( Any crack program will make these substitutions.
I'm hoping this is an area where the free market will sort itself out. The more annoying an ad, the more people will work to block it. The more reasonable ads will not get blocked.
Personally, I'm not out to block all ads. I am going to do whatever I can to block popups, and ads that take over my speakers. Somewhere between the extremes we're going to have to find a happy medium, that allows ad-supported sites, but doesn't piss of visitors to the point that they don't go to the site anymore.
Part of that is feedback to the site. If an ad is so annoying that it drives me away from a site, I try to let the owner know.
I once read a news story about a trucker who was caught with kiddie porn. His novel defense was that he had it to help stay awake. You see, it made him angry to see what terrible things people would do to kids.
For everyone upset at the state providing free internet access, remember that government at various levels provides free access to books. Although they don't usually spend rescources on porn, there is general resistence to the idea of someone else deciding what you and I can view via library provided Internet.
Classic example, is it ok to do research on breast cancer?
In the case of print material, libraries providing porn costs more.
In the case of Internet filtering, providing porn (not filtering) costs less.
I say spend less, and let the truckers have their porn.
"Let me spell it out for the slow witted: when you visit a site with ads you are entering into a social contract which states: I hereby aggree to allow this website to show me ads in exchange for the content it is providing me. By browsing this site you aggree to these terms. If you do not agree to these terms then stop browsing this site."
You left something out: I, the visitor, on the other hand, am under no obligation to view, pay attention to, click on, or buy in response to, the ad.
Otherwise there's no reason not to say that the social contract means I have to click on all the ads. After all, that is how the web site actually gets paid, isn't it? And if the visitor is forceed to click on all the ads, then why don't they have to buy from all the ads?
Look, if a web site wants some sort of forced payment, then they have to implement that, just like Salon does. Salon has a great method. You either pay, or you watch an add in return for one day's web site viewing. That's a contract I'm happy to agree to.
And by the way, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them dim witted.
There's a difference between having ads on a site, and presuming that everyone has to read all the ads on that site.
In TV-land, advertisers hope people will keep watching the ad, not get up and go to the bathroom. To that end, they try to make ads appealing to watch. Ads that are less appealing get watched less.
In Internet-land, advertisers hope people will pay attention to ads, but they can't force it. Some try to push it by being 'in your face' about it. Those tend to be the ads that get blocked.
A web site can send whatever they want in response to my request, but I am under no obligation to receive all of it.
TV stations can put as many ads as they want on, but I am under no obligation to keep watching.
Back in '03 (I think) Rick Fox of the LA Lakers (Pro Basketball) endorsed Ford cars. So in this one add, Rick says "Here's the deal, I make this basket, and you buy yourself a new Ford!"
He proceeds to turn and sink a long basket.
For some reason, I didn't feel compelled by "Social Contract" to buy a Ford. Just like I didn't feel compelled by "Social Contract" to spend two months salary on a wedding ring for my wife.
I'm no more obligated to watch an ad than I am to buy the advertised product. The other side doesn't have to make the web page available, broadcast the movie, what have you. If they do, they have to take their chances that it will increase revenue. If it doesn't, it's not the fault of consumers for not watching.
RTFA- it says they COULD but DON'T. Good grief people. You fill in a form on the web. That web site COULD track all the information in the form. This is ANCIENT news. If there was any evidence that they actually were sharing, THEN this would be news. The person who summarized the article left out a very key quote.
Slashdot Mirror
This should work on any OS. The .0.0.1 host address is just convention. Anything in 127/8 is loopback.
that was Andy Tanenbaum.
but 'faster than ADSL' in bandwidth only. Latency is important too- and for biological carrier class in general- sucks.
What I hate are those fscking CDs AOL keeps sending. Some of the cases are ok, but in general they're a pain in the ass. Hey, AOL, WE DON'T NEED YOUR STUPID 'FREE' CDs!!!
I just remember 'Nissa' (sp?) - late in the Tom Baker era, same time as Adric. She didn't follow the usual female companion clothing trend, so in her last episode, she bascially undressed through the entire thing.
I don't have time to continue this debate in detail, so I'm going to be terse.
I'm happy your brother is happy. A lot of teenagers commit suicide from guilt over being told their 'inclinations' are a sin. Child molesters and rapists hurt other people. Gay people (ignoring other traits not related to being gay) do not.
Sodom and Ghomorrah: you need to read the entire section again. Pay careful attention to the part where Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the rioting crowd. In OT thinking, that seems to be an OK alterntative.
Keep in mind that "homosexuality = sin" is your view based on religion. Nobody else is required to hold your view. Pedophilia and Murder are illegal for good reason- they hurt other people. Comparing them to homosexuality is a red herring.
A lot of people do a lot of things that would send them to hell based on OT teaching. I'd be willing to bet you do some things that Leviticus forbids.
Lastly, in societies where homosexuality has been punishable by death, it hasn't gone away. Some 'choice'.
When did you make the personal choice to be straight?
You see, I feel left out. I never got that choice. I was born straight, and have never felt the slightest inclination to have sex with a man.
So what I'm wondering is- if I never had the choice- and I'm guessing you never had the choice- why are some people different in that they seem to have this 'choice'?
Can we not discriminate against people who are faced with the choice of which gender they will desire sexually?
Since women have 'most' of the same rights as men, can we go back to restricting them from going to medical school? Running for office? I mean, we're not forcing them to work more hours than normal, after all.
Personally, I see gay rights like emancipation and sufferage. It will happen, but it's a long way off.
As for firing Christians- we are nowhere near that situation. And never will be. When someone says "we don't want the ten commandments on the courtroom wall" they are also saying "we don't want the bhagavad gita on the courtroom wall". Something like 80-90% of this nation believe in a higher being. Many of us are just afraid of having a specific higher being (or any higher being) rammed down our throats.
If you have a 90% power position, going down to 80% feels pretty scary, but it's not the end of the world.
The true sign of ratings weakness will be Rose losing clothing.
You can't fire someone because they are black, female, or Christian. You can, in many places, fire them for being gay.
The worst people should be fired, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
A brute force search would take a long time, but a dictionary attack will find it VERY quickly.
Any crack program will make these substitutions.
A=4
A=@
E=3
O=0
S=$
I=!
L=1
C=(
They can be written down.
The same password can be used on a secure system, and some trojan web site.
They can be collected with keyloggers.
They can be told to other people.
They are less memorable, which means more password resets. Password resets will always be a weak point in the system.
For high security AND a large number of users, you HAVE to have two factor authentication.
It also says: "The online discount broker admitted that a backup tape of customer account data from 2000 to 2003 has been misplaced."
The focus of the article is really that customer data was 'leaked'. Probably a better verb. I highly doubt if the only copy is 'gone'.
What makes you think this was the only copy?
Um, ya. Ok. And I thought Hunter was dead.
The works of Bach are in the public domain, but a particular performance of a work by Bach can be copyrighted.
Consider history books. The events described may have occured a thousand years ago, but the book itself is still under copyright.
I'm hoping this is an area where the free market will sort itself out. The more annoying an ad, the more people will work to block it. The more reasonable ads will not get blocked.
Personally, I'm not out to block all ads. I am going to do whatever I can to block popups, and ads that take over my speakers. Somewhere between the extremes we're going to have to find a happy medium, that allows ad-supported sites, but doesn't piss of visitors to the point that they don't go to the site anymore.
Part of that is feedback to the site. If an ad is so annoying that it drives me away from a site, I try to let the owner know.
I once read a news story about a trucker who was caught with kiddie porn. His novel defense was that he had it to help stay awake. You see, it made him angry to see what terrible things people would do to kids.
The judge didn't buy it.
Browsing porn sites or browsing /. Both take bandwidth.
The pipe doesn't care whether the bits are naughty or not. They all cost the same.
but it's no worse than Episodes I and II.
Considering the different budgets involved (and cost for us the viewer) I cut it some slack.
For everyone upset at the state providing free internet access, remember that government at various levels provides free access to books. Although they don't usually spend rescources on porn, there is general resistence to the idea of someone else deciding what you and I can view via library provided Internet.
Classic example, is it ok to do research on breast cancer?
In the case of print material, libraries providing porn costs more.
In the case of Internet filtering, providing porn (not filtering) costs less.
I say spend less, and let the truckers have their porn.
"Let me spell it out for the slow witted: when you visit a site with ads you are entering into a social contract which states: I hereby aggree to allow this website to show me ads in exchange for the content it is providing me. By browsing this site you aggree to these terms. If you do not agree to these terms then stop browsing this site."
You left something out:
I, the visitor, on the other hand, am under no obligation to view, pay attention to, click on, or buy in response to, the ad.
Otherwise there's no reason not to say that the social contract means I have to click on all the ads. After all, that is how the web site actually gets paid, isn't it? And if the visitor is forceed to click on all the ads, then why don't they have to buy from all the ads?
Look, if a web site wants some sort of forced payment, then they have to implement that, just like Salon does. Salon has a great method. You either pay, or you watch an add in return for one day's web site viewing. That's a contract I'm happy to agree to.
And by the way, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them dim witted.
There's a difference between having ads on a site, and presuming that everyone has to read all the ads on that site.
In TV-land, advertisers hope people will keep watching the ad, not get up and go to the bathroom. To that end, they try to make ads appealing to watch. Ads that are less appealing get watched less.
In Internet-land, advertisers hope people will pay attention to ads, but they can't force it. Some try to push it by being 'in your face' about it. Those tend to be the ads that get blocked.
A web site can send whatever they want in response to my request, but I am under no obligation to receive all of it.
TV stations can put as many ads as they want on, but I am under no obligation to keep watching.
Back in '03 (I think) Rick Fox of the LA Lakers (Pro Basketball) endorsed Ford cars. So in this one add, Rick says "Here's the deal, I make this basket, and you buy yourself a new Ford!"
He proceeds to turn and sink a long basket.
For some reason, I didn't feel compelled by "Social Contract" to buy a Ford. Just like I didn't feel compelled by "Social Contract" to spend two months salary on a wedding ring for my wife.
I'm no more obligated to watch an ad than I am to buy the advertised product. The other side doesn't have to make the web page available, broadcast the movie, what have you. If they do, they have to take their chances that it will increase revenue. If it doesn't, it's not the fault of consumers for not watching.
They're not sharing anything!!!
RTFA- it says they COULD but DON'T. Good grief people. You fill in a form on the web. That web site COULD track all the information in the form. This is ANCIENT news. If there was any evidence that they actually were sharing, THEN this would be news. The person who summarized the article left out a very key quote.