Hey, blame my grandmother, whose name was "Bertie". She was married to my Grandfather, "Blanchard" and had several siblings, including "Doda" "Big Sister" "Uncle Brother" and "Talmedge".
This banking blacklist is really quite a bit like the credit bureaus, is it not? My experience with the credit bureaus has been incredibly bad. A number of years ago, they decided that I (John Patrick Narkinsky, born on an unspecified data:) was really my mother (Johnny McNeil Narkinsky, born on the same unspecified date 30-some years earlier).
I tried for FIVE years to get them to unmerge our credit records, without success. And, thanks to the protections congress has given the credit bureaus (that is, it seems I can't sue them for defamation) I have no recourse other than bad credit since my credit report shows all my mother's bad debts.
Wonder how long it will be before they decide that I'm really the well-known russian terrorist Ivan Narkinsky.
If only one planet in a billion contains life... or, if only one planet out of all the trillions contains intelligent life... Then wouldn't natural selection for human beings be just about the most improbable thing imaginable?
I know this is WAY premature. After all, we have no idea if there is not a lot of life out there. But if humans really are the only intelligent life form, then it seems to make naturalistic evolution (that is, without the interference of some "higher power") really improbable. (For what its worth, I'm not a creationist. I just think the jury is still out -- both scripturally and scientifically.)
Get a grip people, this is an opt-in system. That is, nobody is forcing you to get your site registered in.kids.us, and no one is denying you your god-given right to have lots of Pr0n. This does not in any way abrogate your right to free speech. <p> What it does do is allow me to finally hook up the Internet to the computer my four-year-old son has in his room. It is trivially easy for me to setup a firewall filter that restricts that computer to.kids.us - I can do it in squid in about 7 seconds. Essentially, it's just a "white-list", that guarantees me that this subset of sites will not have pornographic content. <p> Why is this necessary? The other day I accidentally typed in "www.googlecom.com" instead of "google.com" in my web browser, and got treated to pictures of a women committing fellacio on some guy. I just checked and they are still there. Can you not understand why I would like to be able to let me son surf the web without being exposed to that kind of crap? <p> Now, before you come back with the old "you should supervise your children" line, let me make an observation: it is literally impossible for a parent to supervise all activities of all children all the time. Such supervision would require one parent per child 24x7, and, unfortunately, we do have to work sometimes! <p> So, there you have it. I have waited 5 years for something like this to be accomplished by the private sector, but all I get is crap like net-nanny, RSACS ratings that every pr0n site in the world overrides, and dozens of sites from HAX0RZ telling people how to get past the software. If the government can establish a domain name hierarchy that is guaranteed safe for kids, I'm all for it. <p> The bottom line is that no one has yet shown how allowing me to choose not to hear your speech infringes on your freedom of speech. Instead, it preserves your freedom of speech by giving me the right to choose not to listen.
Maybe. But there is a substantial difference between "50 years ago" (which could be a rounded figure) and "over 50 years ago." The latter implies that it was in excess of 50 years (without specifying a number.) So, if it were less than 50 years, it kind of reflects unfavorably on the original article's accuracy.
For all those who are outraged that the scam took in so many (i.e. "Why didn't they get some competent people to recview it before investing), the answer is that they did. The article talks about the way that many scientists reviewed the invention, but were never quite able to say that the invention was impossible. On this basis, the investor's said "it appears to work. I'll take the risk and assume it does actually work." <p>
Why didn't the scientists say that this was completely absurd? A lot of reasons. First, they are being paid to review the invention. If they say that the invention doesn't work and it does, then they are liable for the massive losses incurred by the investor for a failed opportunity. If they say it doesn't work and it does, they get sued by the inventor. So, what do they do? They hedge their bets. They say that "more study" is needed, etc. To business types, this sounds like they are just being nerdy and cautious. Since they leave the question open, the investor (who wants to believe) goes ahead and goes for it, figuring that the 5 million dollars invested (or whatever) could well turn into billions. <p> In some respects, the scientiastws have failed them by not emphasizing their near-certainty that the idea was nonsense. And the businessmen failed themselves by not bothering to learn that, when a scientist says "quite improbable", he means "impossible."
<p>
sounds like everyday life to me, and should to most geeks.
Bottom line... One reason why so many people are willing to put up with MS products working so poorly is that very few people actually pay for them directly. Instead, the corporations/schools/hardware-makers buy MS product, and people just install it. If MS starts getting serious about license audits, people are going to start to realize that they are paying $500 each for MS Office, and $100+ for Windows XP. This can only encourage competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, there is some CVS integration in project builder as well, but this article doesn't really talk about it based on the quick glance I gave.
I haven't tried to use the CVS integration, but thought it was interesting.
Welcome to the deep south my friend.
I tried for FIVE years to get them to unmerge our credit records, without success. And, thanks to the protections congress has given the credit bureaus (that is, it seems I can't sue them for defamation) I have no recourse other than bad credit since my credit report shows all my mother's bad debts.
Wonder how long it will be before they decide that I'm really the well-known russian terrorist Ivan Narkinsky.
I know this is WAY premature. After all, we have no idea if there is not a lot of life out there. But if humans really are the only intelligent life form, then it seems to make naturalistic evolution (that is, without the interference of some "higher power") really improbable. (For what its worth, I'm not a creationist. I just think the jury is still out -- both scripturally and scientifically.)
I'll take my flames now :)
Get a grip people, this is an opt-in system. That is, nobody is forcing you to get your site registered in .kids.us, and no one is denying you your god-given right to have lots of Pr0n. This does not in any way abrogate your right to free speech. .kids.us - I can do it in squid in about 7 seconds. Essentially, it's just a "white-list", that guarantees me that this subset of sites will not have pornographic content.
<p>
What it does do is allow me to finally hook up the Internet to the computer my four-year-old son has in his room. It is trivially easy for me to setup a firewall filter that restricts that computer to
<p>
Why is this necessary? The other day I accidentally typed in "www.googlecom.com" instead of "google.com" in my web browser, and got treated to pictures of a women committing fellacio on some guy. I just checked and they are still there. Can you not understand why I would like to be able to let me son surf the web without being exposed to that kind of crap?
<p>
Now, before you come back with the old "you should supervise your children" line, let me make an observation: it is literally impossible for a parent to supervise all activities of all children all the time. Such supervision would require one parent per child 24x7, and, unfortunately, we do have to work sometimes!
<p>
So, there you have it. I have waited 5 years for something like this to be accomplished by the private sector, but all I get is crap like net-nanny, RSACS ratings that every pr0n site in the world overrides, and dozens of sites from HAX0RZ telling people how to get past the software. If the government can establish a domain name hierarchy that is guaranteed safe for kids, I'm all for it.
<p>
The bottom line is that no one has yet shown how allowing me to choose not to hear your speech infringes on your freedom of speech. Instead, it preserves your freedom of speech by giving me the right to choose not to listen.
Maybe. But there is a substantial difference between "50 years ago" (which could be a rounded figure) and "over 50 years ago." The latter implies that it was in excess of 50 years (without specifying a number.) So, if it were less than 50 years, it kind of reflects unfavorably on the original article's accuracy.
For all those who are outraged that the scam took in so many (i.e. "Why didn't they get some competent people to recview it before investing), the answer is that they did. The article talks about the way that many scientists reviewed the invention, but were never quite able to say that the invention was impossible. On this basis, the investor's said "it appears to work. I'll take the risk and assume it does actually work."
<p>
Why didn't the scientists say that this was completely absurd? A lot of reasons. First, they are being paid to review the invention. If they say that the invention doesn't work and it does, then they are liable for the massive losses incurred by the investor for a failed opportunity. If they say it doesn't work and it does, they get sued by the inventor. So, what do they do? They hedge their bets. They say that "more study" is needed, etc. To business types, this sounds like they are just being nerdy and cautious. Since they leave the question open, the investor (who wants to believe) goes ahead and goes for it, figuring that the 5 million dollars invested (or whatever) could well turn into billions.
<p>
In some respects, the scientiastws have failed them by not emphasizing their near-certainty that the idea was nonsense. And the businessmen failed themselves by not bothering to learn that, when a scientist says "quite improbable", he means "impossible."
<p>
sounds like everyday life to me, and should to most geeks.
Bottom line... One reason why so many people are willing to put up with MS products working so poorly is that very few people actually pay for them directly. Instead, the corporations/schools/hardware-makers buy MS product, and people just install it. If MS starts getting serious about license audits, people are going to start to realize that they are paying $500 each for MS Office, and $100+ for Windows XP. This can only encourage competition.