Past copy-protection schemes were okay in my book because laymen couldn't get past them and people who bothered/could were in the minority: piracy prevention but without excess.
Only it's not. Piracy prevention, that is. All it takes is one person on a file sharing network to get past the protection, and the cat's out of the bag; the other thousands of listeners don't have to know how to get past it to just get it off of Kazaa or whatever. It's the illusion of copy protection at best. In that light, your point is actually doubly made, though, as this hurts the laymen who wouldn't be doing any filesharing without stopping the sharing itself.
Life from inanimate matter, and a universe that exploded out of nothing. Sounds like religion, doesn't it?
No, because it offers testable hypotheses and predictions. It doesn't require faith, it only requires an open, intelligent mind and a willingness to learn without prejudice.
Normally, you'd be right. It's almost impossible to train a cat to do something YOU want it to do. When it comes to comething THEY want to do, they're extremely flexible.
Select a spaceship and travel to places where no man has ever been: the exciting real-time simulation shows you the planets and other objects of our solar system in high resolution and from any angle.
Wow, so it takes years to go see Pluto? I'm not sure I have that kind of dedication.
Odds are it would do nothing. Without an intron, a strand of DNA isn't translated into protein and therefore does nothing. The odds of it being inserted into a coding sequence are less than one in ten, and even if it was the odds of it producing some sort of constructive mutation that would do anything interesting are vanishingly small.
Precisely my question. I would swear that I saw an article about this exact experiment using eight variables in SciAm three or four years ago. My first reaction when I saw this piece on Slashdot was actually "this is news?".
I've never been a farmer, but I certainly grew up in the sticks. I lived in a tiny town called Maysville, Oklahoma. Population a thousand or so. My brother and I used to hike off into the wilderness and stay for days, sleeping on the ground and eating fish that we caught and cooked over an open fire. Ah, the joys of being a latchkey kid in the boonies! Very Huck Finn.
Real ASSHOLES kick cats. Real men are secure enough in their masculinity that they don't have to be cruel to animals to make themselves feel big, Nancy.
I dunno if that's in this one or not, but when he does do that in a movie, it has to be a montage sequence of Anakin shopping for masks set to the tune of "Bad to the Bone".
Ah, "shut up", eh? Good argument. You're taking the standard party line, taking credit for the freedoms those people fought and died for. I think it's not only dishonest, it's flat-out disgusting. Those people revolted partly because of poverty, yes. I've said that before. However, having to stand for hours in line to by food was a bigger part of it. Having a government that watched everything they did was a larger part of it. Having a corrupt government full of cronyism and the Slavic equivalent of the mafia was a larger part of it. Living in fear that if you spoke your mind about the government the KGB would come and haul you off to some dark room was a larger part of it. Why don't YOU open a history book, maybe you'll learn that the USSR was on the edge of revolt BEFORE Reagan was elected?
And believe me, I am well aware that we "supplied and trained domestic troops" in a lot of smaller countries. That's why our soldiers keep seeing our own weapons fired back at us when we go to war with these vile regimes overseas. Our country SUPPORTED the Taliban, knowing exactly the kind of people they were, because they were anti-communist. Does that sound, in the long run, like it was a great piece of strategy to you?
Of course Bush used nice words in pulling out of the ABM treaty. That doesn't change the fact that it was against the will of pretty much every other nation in the world, and set back relations between us and other nations immensely for a dubious return. Pulling out of decades-old treaties without paying any attention to the will of the rest of the world is a hearty "fuck you", however you doll it up. A turd by any other name...
And as for this:
"Proof! I gotta ask for proof on this one. Which countries has America promoted ill will toward in the name of the "terrorism"? You make it sound as if Bush is yelling "Yeeehaw.... I don't know why, but let's fuck up that counrty too!"
Where the hell were you during the "Axis of Evil" thing? Bush used this attack as an excuse to go on the offensive against nations that had nothing to do with it. How's this:
Germany warns US against unilateralism
N Korea hits back at US
Bush's 'evil axis' comment stirs critics
Putin warns US on Iraq
EU's Patten criticises US foreign policy
Those were a few headlines from ONE search on the BBC's website. Notice how none of the governments of those coutries have been implicated in the attacks on the US? Notice how two of those are supposed to be our allies? You think this guy is a great diplomat? Seriously, as the polls are beginning to show, a majority of Americans are behind Bush on the war (big shock, presidents always get a bump during the war) but a majority of them disagree with almost EVERYTHING he's doing at home. I think that the republicans know that the only way they'll have a chance in three years (or six months for that matter) is in a climate of war.
Ahahaha...I might ask you the same thing. Do you remember the US troops rolling into Moscow, bringing down the Soviet government? Me neither, because it didn't happen. It was a revolution from within, and taking credit for it is just ridiculous. Long before Reagan even took office, Russian journalists were being persecuted for predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union due to those exact same causes. The Soviet government's ridiculous and unsustainable spending on nukes was a drop in the bucket compared to the decades of mismanagement, corruption, and thought policing that was the real cause of its downfall. Learn some damn history and try an argument as opposed to name-calling. As for your implication that Reagan wasn't bad for the economy, I can only assume that you're unfamiliar with the fact that the average wage in constant dollars fell precipitously during his tenure as president. That means that the average person worked more hours for the same amount of purchasing power or worked the same amount and saw their purchasing power go down. Sound great to you? Doesn't to me.
Mmmmm, nice argument. Do you know what ad hominem means? Do you mean to say you have some sort of credible proof from your excellent talk radio sources that contradicts the public record? Would you like to point to any sort of credible evidence that refutes any of what I said, or do you just want to call names?
Hmmm...increased unilateralism...talking nuclear proliferation in spite of all common sense...talking missile defense in spite of the fact that it has repeatedly failed tests and would be as effective against nukes as a beach umbrella and further pisses off foreign nations...pulling out of treaties with an attitude of "fuck you, we do what you want, we're the US"...using the recent terrorist attacks to promote ill will toward coutries that have nothing to do with them. Hell yes. If it ever comes to that, I would be willing to bet that it was a republican president that put us there.
That is such a tired crock. For god's sake, the ex-Soviet citizens ended the cold war, and some of them died doing it. This line of reasoning is akin to the British taking credit for the American Revolution just because they made things so shitty that the Americans had no choice (not taking a potshot at the Brits, let bygones be bygones ). Reagan spent our country into an economic shutdown so that he could give money to his friends, and then people give him credit for a revolution that had less to do with the cold war than the corruption and incompetence of the Soviet government. Feh.
Slashdot Mirror
Past copy-protection schemes were okay in my book because laymen couldn't get past them and people who bothered/could were in the minority: piracy prevention but without excess.
Only it's not. Piracy prevention, that is. All it takes is one person on a file sharing network to get past the protection, and the cat's out of the bag; the other thousands of listeners don't have to know how to get past it to just get it off of Kazaa or whatever. It's the illusion of copy protection at best. In that light, your point is actually doubly made, though, as this hurts the laymen who wouldn't be doing any filesharing without stopping the sharing itself.
Doing my best Tom Lehrer impersonation:
It's time for "nu mass"
nu-hu-hu mass...
I'm so ashamed.
Last time I heard, he had retired. Sorry.
They are there. Just look on the right side of the page, about halfway down.
Man, I hope that was a joke.
Life from inanimate matter, and a universe that exploded out of nothing. Sounds like religion, doesn't it?
No, because it offers testable hypotheses and predictions. It doesn't require faith, it only requires an open, intelligent mind and a willingness to learn without prejudice.
Normally, you'd be right. It's almost impossible to train a cat to do something YOU want it to do. When it comes to comething THEY want to do, they're extremely flexible.
Select a spaceship and travel to places where no man has ever been: the exciting real-time simulation shows you the planets and other objects of our solar system in high resolution and from any angle.
Wow, so it takes years to go see Pluto? I'm not sure I have that kind of dedication.
Odds are it would do nothing. Without an intron, a strand of DNA isn't translated into protein and therefore does nothing. The odds of it being inserted into a coding sequence are less than one in ten, and even if it was the odds of it producing some sort of constructive mutation that would do anything interesting are vanishingly small.
Precisely my question. I would swear that I saw an article about this exact experiment using eight variables in SciAm three or four years ago. My first reaction when I saw this piece on Slashdot was actually "this is news?".
Mine just dropped news access without dropping the price. It's the best of both worlds! For them, that is. I think it sucks.
I'm pretty sure that was just a typo.
I've never been a farmer, but I certainly grew up in the sticks. I lived in a tiny town called Maysville, Oklahoma. Population a thousand or so. My brother and I used to hike off into the wilderness and stay for days, sleeping on the ground and eating fish that we caught and cooked over an open fire. Ah, the joys of being a latchkey kid in the boonies! Very Huck Finn.
Hmmm...as a person who has seen the result of this sort of humor up close, I can tell you it's not very damn funny when it's real.
"Pissed" out of a cow? Maybe you should reconsider your choice of dairy vendors; I don't think that's milk you've been drinking.
Special classes from then on out.
Depends on where you live.
Real ASSHOLES kick cats. Real men are secure enough in their masculinity that they don't have to be cruel to animals to make themselves feel big, Nancy.
I dunno if that's in this one or not, but when he does do that in a movie, it has to be a montage sequence of Anakin shopping for masks set to the tune of "Bad to the Bone".
Ah, "shut up", eh? Good argument. You're taking the standard party line, taking credit for the freedoms those people fought and died for. I think it's not only dishonest, it's flat-out disgusting. Those people revolted partly because of poverty, yes. I've said that before. However, having to stand for hours in line to by food was a bigger part of it. Having a government that watched everything they did was a larger part of it. Having a corrupt government full of cronyism and the Slavic equivalent of the mafia was a larger part of it. Living in fear that if you spoke your mind about the government the KGB would come and haul you off to some dark room was a larger part of it. Why don't YOU open a history book, maybe you'll learn that the USSR was on the edge of revolt BEFORE Reagan was elected?
And believe me, I am well aware that we "supplied and trained domestic troops" in a lot of smaller countries. That's why our soldiers keep seeing our own weapons fired back at us when we go to war with these vile regimes overseas. Our country SUPPORTED the Taliban, knowing exactly the kind of people they were, because they were anti-communist. Does that sound, in the long run, like it was a great piece of strategy to you?
Of course Bush used nice words in pulling out of the ABM treaty. That doesn't change the fact that it was against the will of pretty much every other nation in the world, and set back relations between us and other nations immensely for a dubious return. Pulling out of decades-old treaties without paying any attention to the will of the rest of the world is a hearty "fuck you", however you doll it up. A turd by any other name...
And as for this:
"Proof! I gotta ask for proof on this one. Which countries has America promoted ill will toward in the name of the "terrorism"? You make it sound as if Bush is yelling "Yeeehaw.... I don't know why, but let's fuck up that counrty too!"
Where the hell were you during the "Axis of Evil" thing? Bush used this attack as an excuse to go on the offensive against nations that had nothing to do with it. How's this:
Germany warns US against unilateralism
N Korea hits back at US
Bush's 'evil axis' comment stirs critics
Putin warns US on Iraq
EU's Patten criticises US foreign policy
Those were a few headlines from ONE search on the BBC's website. Notice how none of the governments of those coutries have been implicated in the attacks on the US? Notice how two of those are supposed to be our allies? You think this guy is a great diplomat? Seriously, as the polls are beginning to show, a majority of Americans are behind Bush on the war (big shock, presidents always get a bump during the war) but a majority of them disagree with almost EVERYTHING he's doing at home. I think that the republicans know that the only way they'll have a chance in three years (or six months for that matter) is in a climate of war.
Ahahaha...I might ask you the same thing. Do you remember the US troops rolling into Moscow, bringing down the Soviet government? Me neither, because it didn't happen. It was a revolution from within, and taking credit for it is just ridiculous. Long before Reagan even took office, Russian journalists were being persecuted for predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union due to those exact same causes. The Soviet government's ridiculous and unsustainable spending on nukes was a drop in the bucket compared to the decades of mismanagement, corruption, and thought policing that was the real cause of its downfall. Learn some damn history and try an argument as opposed to name-calling. As for your implication that Reagan wasn't bad for the economy, I can only assume that you're unfamiliar with the fact that the average wage in constant dollars fell precipitously during his tenure as president. That means that the average person worked more hours for the same amount of purchasing power or worked the same amount and saw their purchasing power go down. Sound great to you? Doesn't to me.
Mmmmm, nice argument. Do you know what ad hominem means? Do you mean to say you have some sort of credible proof from your excellent talk radio sources that contradicts the public record? Would you like to point to any sort of credible evidence that refutes any of what I said, or do you just want to call names?
Hmmm...increased unilateralism...talking nuclear proliferation in spite of all common sense...talking missile defense in spite of the fact that it has repeatedly failed tests and would be as effective against nukes as a beach umbrella and further pisses off foreign nations...pulling out of treaties with an attitude of "fuck you, we do what you want, we're the US"...using the recent terrorist attacks to promote ill will toward coutries that have nothing to do with them. Hell yes. If it ever comes to that, I would be willing to bet that it was a republican president that put us there.
That is such a tired crock. For god's sake, the ex-Soviet citizens ended the cold war, and some of them died doing it. This line of reasoning is akin to the British taking credit for the American Revolution just because they made things so shitty that the Americans had no choice (not taking a potshot at the Brits, let bygones be bygones ). Reagan spent our country into an economic shutdown so that he could give money to his friends, and then people give him credit for a revolution that had less to do with the cold war than the corruption and incompetence of the Soviet government. Feh.