I can't imagine why the same application itself would render the same format differently across two platforms.
Just because it has the same name doesn't mean it's the same application. Or even if it were the same binary running under emulation, differences can occur.
I'm a believer in financing the state through taxes. But I'm also of the opinion that there should be some kind of logic to tax. Charging people money for something when they haven't actually made any money, or indeed materially benefited in any way, as in this case is like something out of a one dimensional folk tale. When tax is levied, there should always be a question, why is it being levied?
The trip is valued at $138,000. Whether he can resell it or not is not the IRD's problem. It's not a profit tax, or an assets tax, it's an income tax.
I would actually look for more Watergate investigations or probes.
Yes. We have to nail Nixon. And Kissinger is a loose cannon.
If you mean Whitewater, they spent 6 years and $40 million investigating that, with a hostile Congress looking for anything to hang the Clintons with. Finding no financial smoking guns, they had to look for cigars instead. A Democratic Congress isn't going to reopen that.
How would attacking the husband make the wife look bad?
Because she's married to him. You think BIll's history won't be brought up in the campaign? Stand by for all the bimbo, stained dress, sexual harassment stories to be rerun.
She's a carpetbagger who stayed with her cheating husband for political gain. Why would I trust a word coming out of her mouth?
As for being a carpetbagger, it's hardly a secret she moved to New York specifically to run for the Senate. The voters elected her knowing this. As for political gain, if she wanted to dump Bill, she could have easily done so and got a lot of sympathy. Bill's sexual history is no doubt going to feature heavily in attack ads as the campaign goes forward.
The Sovinformsputnik link is intersting. But they seem rather out of date (not just from the "Sov" in the name).
For instance, their sample page World Trade Center. "These twin towers dominate the skyline by their height and the clearness of their lines. Currently it is the center for nearly every phase of international business...."
It would be nice to easily block porn from a PC...If the government forced all porn off of.com and onto.xxx,
That's technically, legally and politically impossible. Please, RTFA.
As it is, I don't know of a quick and easy way to block porn from a Windows XP/IE PC. I'm sure there's a way, but it's probably far too complicated for your average parents.
1) disconnect it. 2)supervise your children. 2) There are dozens of "Net nanny" applications.
Don't try to "clean up" the whole Internet because some people are too stupid to use it or too busy to look after their own children. Give them rules on what they're allowed to do. Your children are your responsibility. If you let your children play on the freeway, you can't blame anyone else for the results.
For that reason, it will be unnecessary for companies to buy.xxx domains to match the domains they already own, and it might also be detrimental to the companies' business, unless they sell or are in some other way associated with XXX-related products, in which case it might be benificial to their business!
They will buy the.xxx and park it. They don't want anyone googling for their name to get a porn site instead. Companies now usually buy the.net,,info,.biz and many CC TLDs, not because they want to use them, just to stop anyone else using them. That's why new TLDs are just a scam and a waste of time and money. It doesn't increase the useful number of URLs, it just creates more aliases and dead sites.
It is. I buy a lot of second hand DVDs, and a proportion of those turn out to be pirated. You can't always tell from the packaging. The cams are sometimes almost tolerable, like an old TV, but often are fuzzy and distorted, and you see people walking in front of the screen, hear coughing and laughing... once I see that it's a cam now I just press eject and bin them. If a movie is worth your time to watch, watch a decent copy.
Greetings, I have come back in time from the year 2007 with exciting news. In my time we no longer have to type in random words to find domains under a particular tld, instead we have a powerful and strange technology called "Google"
If you know how to use "site" search modifiers, you already know how to find what you want, regardless of TLD. And if you were looking for porn, why would you limit yourself to that under.xxx? It would be a lot easier to use metatags, far more flexible than TLDs, which are an administrative, not a descriptive, construction.
If you must embed a porn signifier in the URL, simply prefixing sites with xxx instead of www would work perfectly well. Domains could separate thmselves into porn and non-porn sections. The only problem is that registrars couldn't charge for that, so there isn't any impetus.
And if you really only want to see porn in your search results, use a porn search engine. Google can help you, it lists "Results 1 - 10 of about 519,000 for "porn search". I'm sure some of these would fill your needs now rather than waiting a few years for an implementation of.xxx.
No, but if you type (say) "lingerie" in Google and you're looking for pics, not online stores, being able to filter your results down to a specific TLD would be handy
There are plenty of porn sites that are at the.com TLD that share a similar or same name as a non-porn.org TLD. So, yeah, it's possible to go to the naughty sites and not intend to.
You're now arguing a completely different proposition. It's one thing to create a domain.xxx and say it's for porn. Whatever else it does, you'll certainly get porn sites there. It's quite another to imagine that this will magically lead to all porn disappearing from.com. So you'll be no more safe from "stumbling" on porn. And as your example shows, many people would still prefer to use the.com just for a shred of deniability when their boss/wife looks through their history.
We have to grow a second brain on top of our existing ones so that we become much smarter! If we don't, we'll still be living in caves." Do you not know circular logic when you see it?
But do you know a stupid analogy when you make one?
I help to run web filtering at a small primary school, and while I realise a TLD like this won't shift all the crud into an easily-blocked area of the net, it's a good start.
No, it's just more work. It would create a new set of porn sites which you'd block. Knowing they're being blocked by people like you, most sites, ESPECIALLY the most objectionable ones (i.e. the "crud"), will keep their.com site fully active. So what do you gain? And any site you admin will be blackmailed into buying the corresponding.xxx to prevent it being squatted and redirecting to a real porn site.
And a TLD makes it easier to find, how is it a bad idea again?
What does a TLD have to do with finding porn, or anything else? Are you gong to make a list of words, append.xxx, and type them into your address bar: aardvark.xxx,.... zygote.xxx?
No one wants.xxx except the registrars, who would sell.xxx domains, speculators would would buy them to resell to companies defensively. Big companies would be forced to buy the.xxx rather than let one of the scumbags set up a site on yahoo.xxx, etc. Companies already buy.info,.biz,.net,.org and usually just park or redirect from them. There won't be any less porn on.com. It's just a complete scam.
But we can do an awful lot of science without humans,
Of course. Sending humans is justifiable only as leading to colonising, for its own sake. Basically, a biological imperative. Otherwise we'd still be chipping rocks in Olduvai Gorge.
you wouldn't have to rerun wires if you changed the seating configuration.
I think just wrestling the chairs around and bolting them to the floor would be a lot more time consuming than plugging in a couple of sockets. Besides, they already wire the seats for sound, video, electricity, adding one more cable isn't a big deal. They could combine them all into one fat cable and a single socket to make moving easier.
Don't try to second guess the mods. It's as likely to provoke as to mollify. If you're actually fearful of being modded, just post AC.
You have to understand how much it would cost, and that there would be no economic benefits at all apart from the teflon/tang/spacepen type spin-offs; and if that's the aim,
Of course that's not the aim. The Moon will be more than enough of a technical challenge. The reason to go to Mars is pure science; to explore, and in the (very) long term; to colonise. Any economic payoff, unless we discover abandoned Martian flying saucers, is likely to be centuries away, no one is pretending otherwise. (Well, maybe Zubrin is.)
Just recently I read a newspaper article stating that Canada is now on the watch list for movie piracy (up there with Russia and China.) The article stated approximately 50% of movies are cammed here, and that the movie industry will likely delay the releases of new films here.
Who really cares about "cammed" movies? Anyone who'd download a 700 MB file, of a blurry, shaky video with a tinny soundtrack obscured by laughing and cellophane rustling is welcome to it. Either they're desperate to see a film and will be in the queue when it's finally released, or they're so cheap they will never pay to see it. In either case, no loss to the industry.
I pick up a lot of used DVDs, some of dubious origin. If one turns out to be a cam I press EJECT and chuck it in the bin. The Russian pirate editions are much better quality, and often have amusing previews of Russian movies included.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it has the same name doesn't mean it's the same application. Or even if it were the same binary running under emulation, differences can occur.
"PDF has reached a point in it's maturity cycle"
It's == It is. Its == possessive.
"a full blown du jure standard"
Either [soup] "du jour" or [practices] "de jure"?
Can't tell who's responsible for this, the linked page is Slashdotted.
The trip is valued at $138,000. Whether he can resell it or not is not the IRD's problem. It's not a profit tax, or an assets tax, it's an income tax.
Right. Because there won't be any publicity, will there?
Ask Richard Hatch how that works.
Yes. We have to nail Nixon. And Kissinger is a loose cannon.
If you mean Whitewater, they spent 6 years and $40 million investigating that, with a hostile Congress looking for anything to hang the Clintons with. Finding no financial smoking guns, they had to look for cigars instead. A Democratic Congress isn't going to reopen that.
Because she's married to him. You think BIll's history won't be brought up in the campaign? Stand by for all the bimbo, stained dress, sexual harassment stories to be rerun.
As for being a carpetbagger, it's hardly a secret she moved to New York specifically to run for the Senate. The voters elected her knowing this. As for political gain, if she wanted to dump Bill, she could have easily done so and got a lot of sympathy. Bill's sexual history is no doubt going to feature heavily in attack ads as the campaign goes forward.
For instance, their sample page World Trade Center. "These twin towers dominate the skyline by their height and the clearness of their lines. Currently it is the center for nearly every phase of international business...."
So not really a real-time database.
Why isn;t it a good idea?
Terrorists? Martians? Pigeons?
That's technically, legally and politically impossible. Please, RTFA. As it is, I don't know of a quick and easy way to block porn from a Windows XP/IE PC. I'm sure there's a way, but it's probably far too complicated for your average parents.
1) disconnect it. 2)supervise your children. 2) There are dozens of "Net nanny" applications.
Don't try to "clean up" the whole Internet because some people are too stupid to use it or too busy to look after their own children. Give them rules on what they're allowed to do. Your children are your responsibility. If you let your children play on the freeway, you can't blame anyone else for the results.
They will buy the .xxx and park it. They don't want anyone googling for their name to get a porn site instead. Companies now usually buy the .net, ,info, .biz and many CC TLDs, not because they want to use them, just to stop anyone else using them. That's why new TLDs are just a scam and a waste of time and money. It doesn't increase the useful number of URLs, it just creates more aliases and dead sites.
It is. I buy a lot of second hand DVDs, and a proportion of those turn out to be pirated. You can't always tell from the packaging. The cams are sometimes almost tolerable, like an old TV, but often are fuzzy and distorted, and you see people walking in front of the screen, hear coughing and laughing... once I see that it's a cam now I just press eject and bin them. If a movie is worth your time to watch, watch a decent copy.
If you know how to use "site" search modifiers, you already know how to find what you want, regardless of TLD. And if you were looking for porn, why would you limit yourself to that under .xxx? It would be a lot easier to use metatags, far more flexible than TLDs, which are an administrative, not a descriptive, construction.
If you must embed a porn signifier in the URL, simply prefixing sites with xxx instead of www would work perfectly well. Domains could separate thmselves into porn and non-porn sections. The only problem is that registrars couldn't charge for that, so there isn't any impetus.
And if you really only want to see porn in your search results, use a porn search engine. Google can help you, it lists "Results 1 - 10 of about 519,000 for "porn search". I'm sure some of these would fill your needs now rather than waiting a few years for an implementation of .xxx.
Or here's a good starting point on your quest for porn.
Go fuck yourself.
Nobody will USE the sites, but every company will have to BUY them, or suffer a porn site using their name. So what GOOD is done?
Try Googling for lingerie XXX.
Results 1-20 of about 8,650 for lingerie xxx.
Isn't that enough?
You're now arguing a completely different proposition. It's one thing to create a domain .xxx and say it's for porn. Whatever else it does, you'll certainly get porn sites there. It's quite another to imagine that this will magically lead to all porn disappearing from .com. So you'll be no more safe from "stumbling" on porn. And as your example shows, many people would still prefer to use the .com just for a shred of deniability when their boss/wife looks through their history.
But do you know a stupid analogy when you make one?
No, it's just more work. It would create a new set of porn sites which you'd block. Knowing they're being blocked by people like you, most sites, ESPECIALLY the most objectionable ones (i.e. the "crud"), will keep their .com site fully active. So what do you gain? And any site you admin will be blackmailed into buying the corresponding .xxx to prevent it being squatted and redirecting to a real porn site.
What does a TLD have to do with finding porn, or anything else? Are you gong to make a list of words, append .xxx, and type them into your address bar: aardvark.xxx,.... zygote.xxx?
RTFA. Or were you just gunning to get first post?
No one wants .xxx except the registrars, who would sell .xxx domains, speculators would would buy them to resell to companies defensively. Big companies would be forced to buy the .xxx rather than let one of the scumbags set up a site on yahoo.xxx, etc. Companies already buy .info, .biz, .net, .org and usually just park or redirect from them. There won't be any less porn on .com. It's just a complete scam.
Of course. Sending humans is justifiable only as leading to colonising, for its own sake. Basically, a biological imperative. Otherwise we'd still be chipping rocks in Olduvai Gorge.
I think just wrestling the chairs around and bolting them to the floor would be a lot more time consuming than plugging in a couple of sockets. Besides, they already wire the seats for sound, video, electricity, adding one more cable isn't a big deal. They could combine them all into one fat cable and a single socket to make moving easier.
Don't try to second guess the mods. It's as likely to provoke as to mollify. If you're actually fearful of being modded, just post AC.
You have to understand how much it would cost, and that there would be no economic benefits at all apart from the teflon/tang/spacepen type spin-offs; and if that's the aim,
Of course that's not the aim. The Moon will be more than enough of a technical challenge. The reason to go to Mars is pure science; to explore, and in the (very) long term; to colonise. Any economic payoff, unless we discover abandoned Martian flying saucers, is likely to be centuries away, no one is pretending otherwise. (Well, maybe Zubrin is.)
Who really cares about "cammed" movies? Anyone who'd download a 700 MB file, of a blurry, shaky video with a tinny soundtrack obscured by laughing and cellophane rustling is welcome to it. Either they're desperate to see a film and will be in the queue when it's finally released, or they're so cheap they will never pay to see it. In either case, no loss to the industry.
I pick up a lot of used DVDs, some of dubious origin. If one turns out to be a cam I press EJECT and chuck it in the bin. The Russian pirate editions are much better quality, and often have amusing previews of Russian movies included.