In the case of extortion and blackmail, the matter is not settled. The extortionist can come back at any time and hit you up for cash again.
Well, when paying blackmail you would ideally get the physical evidence of your indiscretion, such as film negatives, documents, stained dresses, bloody knives, etc. The blackmailer faces the risk of his victim deciding that killing him is the best solution otherwise.
I did not say that "emerge" was a better word to use.
You said "lack of usage of evolution is primarily because it's a general term". The implication is that they were using less "general" terms. They're not; in fact they're using more vague terms.
For the record, "mutation" would be a more specific term than "evolve"
No, quite untrue. You really don't understand evolution. Evolution is the process of selection of variations; mutation is just one of many ways variation can arise. Most mutations are counter-survival.
Hardly surprising. A two year old is more likely to grab the keys to the car than to wield a machine gun.
A two-year-old is more likely to eat the keys than a machine gun too. For that reason alone, keep your keys out of their reach.
I've never understood why so many people immediately take out their keys when they get home, or to their office. Are they afraid of spoiling the line of their suit? I just keep my keys in my pocket except when I'm using tehm. I've seen my boss lock himself out of his home several times because he left the keys on his desk and had to call someone to let him in.
What would you think of an ad that depicted small children apparently having fun while playing with poisons, using knifes, shooting firearms, operating power tools, or installing an electrical outlet? Does that sound like a good idea to you? I'm all for personal responsibility in most things, but children don't always have adequate judgment, so I think the world is a safer place if we don't encourage them to do dangerous things.
Have you seen Home Alone? Roadrunner cartoons? The Three Stooges? Spy Kids? Malcolm in the Middle? The Simpsons? Kids are impressionable, but not stupid. They know they can't do anything thay see on TV, and are especially sceptical of ads. (Just because they say "I want that!" doesn't mean they have been brainwashed, they're just naturally greedy.) I have a 9-year-old myself, so I feel qualifed to have an opinion here. Besides, kids see people driving cars every day of their life.
All that has to happen is some big-wig at Dell watches somebody mess around in Linux
As opposed to messing around in Windows? Have you ever tried to walk someone through fixing their Windows PC over the phone? I'd much rather scrape barnacles off boat bottoms for a living.
Anyway, they supply these systems with a free DOS clone that boots up to a C:> prompt, not any version of Linux; software support cost = zero; yet it still has a higher sticker price than with XP. How even a PHB could "perceive" a cost for something they don't sell I don't know.
Fixing it, however... imagine telling the user over the phone they have to be very specific about when they use the shift key.
Most people can find the shift key. It's actually a hell of a lot easier to tell someone to type specific text than guide them through a GUI over the phone.
What it means --- and all that it means --- is that the mass-market laptop running Windows sells in big numbers and the bare bones laptop sans Windows sells in small numbers.
No, it doesn't. You can customise any Dell model. So their price is not based on having many identical models sold. I think imaging from a Linux rather than a Windows image would have less impact than options like swapping RAM, drives or video cards; or for that matter the several varieties of Windows and MS Office. It's all about kickbacks from installing crap, not mnaufacturing costs.
Seriously though, I wonder if they mark it up because of percieved tech support problems down the road.
The comparison wasn't with Linux installed, but nothing. If you install Linux yourself, you won;t get ANY support at all, so that's not the issue.
Even so, why should Linux tech support cost them more? It's all outsourced anyway to people who read through checklists like robots. They can just as easily tell you to reboot and reinstall your Linux system as they do your Windows.
though at least before 2007 (which I haven't used so can't comment on) they haven't done much to bring attention to the feature
Word DOS (version 4 at least) had it back almost 20 years ago. And actually it was much easier to use styles back in the DOS version. Current versions try so hard to second guess you in the quest for user-friendliness and layering features on top of features that you can change or create new styles without knowing or intending to. Old-school required you to RTFA, but then you could use styles very efficiently. Now styles are much more sophisticated, but hardly anyone uses them correctly. I get docuements from all kinds of people, including many university lecturers. None, out of hundreds over the last 15 years, has had a clue of how to style their documents. Headings are "Normal" with font commands to make them large; body text is "Heading 1" converted to 12-point Times; bulleted and numbered lists are a minefield, tables are a quagmire of hacks, spaces and tabs, etc...
, i've always thought, why doesn't updating this style make all text with that style update? Why do I always have to change the same thing over and over again?
The idea of styles didn't orginate in CSS, it was used in page layout decades before the web. I use Ventura, which features this heavily, but PageMaker, Quark, etc all have styles.
And actually, Word does too, but using styles correctly in Word is fraught with difficulty. The method of updating styles is capricious. I do DTP for a living, and when I get a new document from an author, I generally have to spend time, up to hours, sorting out the mess of styles into something logical. Users can hardly be blamed, the online help is atrocious, and none of the "how to" books I've looked at teaches how to use styles consistently. But this site has some pointers.
Well, sorry, but I happen to disagree. I think prosecuting him for the 2,999 other cases but letting the judge one go implies pretty clearly that the end justifies the means.
In reality, he's not being prosecuted for ANY of the admitted cases of infecting people with his Trojan and spying on their email. In those there was no "end" to justify his "means", yet still he's getting off scot free. WTF does that imply?
In any case, my comment referred to the practicalities of prosecution. Failure to prosecute is not an endorsement of the accused's morals. In many cases when a habitual criminal is prosecuted not every possiblke charge is documented. There is unlikely to be any difference between a sentence for 2999 or 3000 similar offences.
I wrote: Give him a pass for hacking the judge. Prosecute him for hacking the other 2999 people....
You wrote: Give him a pass for hacking the judge. No, really, don't. This guy knowingly, systematically broke the law...
Again: I wrote "PROSECUTE HIM". If you think he should be charged with hacking the judge too, well good luck with that. I thought the other 2999 cases without mitigating circumstances would be sufficient.
I'd say the chances are about 80% that one of Apple's agreements with the RIAA stipulates that all music sold from the iTMS will have DRM on it regardless who it is from.
I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds illegal. Surely non-RIAA companies could sue Apple and/or the RIAA about such terms being forced on them by a competitor.
Give him a pass for hacking the judge.
No, really, don't. This guy knowingly, systematically broke the law for an extended period, invading thousands of people's privacy in the process.
Did you read past the first sentence before replying?
Give him a pass for hacking the judge. Prosecute him for hacking the other 2999 people. Self-righteous busy body he is. Of course, the 2999 people will all be too afraid to make a fuss, as they'll be branded as pedophiles.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, when paying blackmail you would ideally get the physical evidence of your indiscretion, such as film negatives, documents, stained dresses, bloody knives, etc. The blackmailer faces the risk of his victim deciding that killing him is the best solution otherwise.
Well, consider Julie Amero, a teacher convicted for not stopping porn popups in her classroom. She didn't get much wriggle room.
Take 2:
If you leave your car parked on a hill in neutral without the emergency brake on, and it rolls down the hill
There's no point in reading further.
Just say NO to car = copyright analogies.
There's no point in reading further.
Just say NO to car = copyright analogies.
Just watch Firefly and imagine Star Fleet logos on the Alliance uniforms.
You said "lack of usage of evolution is primarily because it's a general term". The implication is that they were using less "general" terms. They're not; in fact they're using more vague terms.
For the record, "mutation" would be a more specific term than "evolve"
No, quite untrue. You really don't understand evolution. Evolution is the process of selection of variations; mutation is just one of many ways variation can arise. Most mutations are counter-survival.
No. Did you RTFA? They discusss this point. The terms being used instead of "evolution" are no more technical, like "acquire", even "learn".
Wrong. And remarkably, she's survived, despite my parenting skills.
Completely shutting yourself off to possible good solutions is fairly stupid.
Taking yourself too seriously is extremely stupid. And it's not a "good solution". It's a non-solution to a non-problem.
Good God. And I thought I had it tough.
A two-year-old is more likely to eat the keys than a machine gun too. For that reason alone, keep your keys out of their reach.
I've never understood why so many people immediately take out their keys when they get home, or to their office. Are they afraid of spoiling the line of their suit? I just keep my keys in my pocket except when I'm using tehm. I've seen my boss lock himself out of his home several times because he left the keys on his desk and had to call someone to let him in.
Have you seen Home Alone? Roadrunner cartoons? The Three Stooges? Spy Kids? Malcolm in the Middle? The Simpsons? Kids are impressionable, but not stupid. They know they can't do anything thay see on TV, and are especially sceptical of ads. (Just because they say "I want that!" doesn't mean they have been brainwashed, they're just naturally greedy.) I have a 9-year-old myself, so I feel qualifed to have an opinion here. Besides, kids see people driving cars every day of their life.
I see it as 80 people who shouldn't have been allowed to breed.
As opposed to messing around in Windows? Have you ever tried to walk someone through fixing their Windows PC over the phone? I'd much rather scrape barnacles off boat bottoms for a living. Anyway, they supply these systems with a free DOS clone that boots up to a C:> prompt, not any version of Linux; software support cost = zero; yet it still has a higher sticker price than with XP. How even a PHB could "perceive" a cost for something they don't sell I don't know.
Fixing it, however... imagine telling the user over the phone they have to be very specific about when they use the shift key.
Most people can find the shift key. It's actually a hell of a lot easier to tell someone to type specific text than guide them through a GUI over the phone.
No, it doesn't. You can customise any Dell model. So their price is not based on having many identical models sold. I think imaging from a Linux rather than a Windows image would have less impact than options like swapping RAM, drives or video cards; or for that matter the several varieties of Windows and MS Office. It's all about kickbacks from installing crap, not mnaufacturing costs.
The comparison wasn't with Linux installed, but nothing. If you install Linux yourself, you won;t get ANY support at all, so that's not the issue.
Even so, why should Linux tech support cost them more? It's all outsourced anyway to people who read through checklists like robots. They can just as easily tell you to reboot and reinstall your Linux system as they do your Windows.
Yep. You could certainly fit almost nine times as many on a standard pallet.
Word DOS (version 4 at least) had it back almost 20 years ago. And actually it was much easier to use styles back in the DOS version. Current versions try so hard to second guess you in the quest for user-friendliness and layering features on top of features that you can change or create new styles without knowing or intending to. Old-school required you to RTFA, but then you could use styles very efficiently. Now styles are much more sophisticated, but hardly anyone uses them correctly. I get docuements from all kinds of people, including many university lecturers. None, out of hundreds over the last 15 years, has had a clue of how to style their documents. Headings are "Normal" with font commands to make them large; body text is "Heading 1" converted to 12-point Times; bulleted and numbered lists are a minefield, tables are a quagmire of hacks, spaces and tabs, etc...
The idea of styles didn't orginate in CSS, it was used in page layout decades before the web. I use Ventura, which features this heavily, but PageMaker, Quark, etc all have styles.
And actually, Word does too, but using styles correctly in Word is fraught with difficulty. The method of updating styles is capricious. I do DTP for a living, and when I get a new document from an author, I generally have to spend time, up to hours, sorting out the mess of styles into something logical. Users can hardly be blamed, the online help is atrocious, and none of the "how to" books I've looked at teaches how to use styles consistently. But this site has some pointers.
"Trolling" is a specific activity of being provocative just for the hell of it. I was merely being sarcastic.
In reality, he's not being prosecuted for ANY of the admitted cases of infecting people with his Trojan and spying on their email. In those there was no "end" to justify his "means", yet still he's getting off scot free. WTF does that imply?
In any case, my comment referred to the practicalities of prosecution. Failure to prosecute is not an endorsement of the accused's morals. In many cases when a habitual criminal is prosecuted not every possiblke charge is documented. There is unlikely to be any difference between a sentence for 2999 or 3000 similar offences.
What's your point?
...
My point appears to be that you can't read.
I wrote:
Give him a pass for hacking the judge. Prosecute him for hacking the other 2999 people.
You wrote:
Give him a pass for hacking the judge.
No, really, don't. This guy knowingly, systematically broke the law...
Again: I wrote "PROSECUTE HIM". If you think he should be charged with hacking the judge too, well good luck with that. I thought the other 2999 cases without mitigating circumstances would be sufficient.
I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds illegal. Surely non-RIAA companies could sue Apple and/or the RIAA about such terms being forced on them by a competitor.
What "charges"? Theft? Nothing was stolen. Trademark? If the guy made it himself and didn't sell it, no. So what?
Just say no to car analogies.
No, really, don't. This guy knowingly, systematically broke the law for an extended period, invading thousands of people's privacy in the process.
Did you read past the first sentence before replying?
Give him a pass for hacking the judge. Prosecute him for hacking the other 2999 people. Self-righteous busy body he is. Of course, the 2999 people will all be too afraid to make a fuss, as they'll be branded as pedophiles.